Arctic sea ice melt at record level


Recommended Posts

Shane Nokes

You do realize that they already did core samples and found that this matches up to a cycle that happens about once every 150 years right? It's varies, but the average is 150. This time it was 130...and that's not the shortest interval that has occurred according to the core sample data.

So no, we're really not causing any detectable issues as of yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hum

Bye bye Florida :woot:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathaniel Smith_329019

Geo engineering,GMOS should be looked at not man made warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrakeN2k

I like how humans thinks of "progress" is consuming more finite resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

Just a question, do you think the earth changes have gotten to the point of no return? Is it too late to stop the changes regardless of what we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrakeN2k

I say no, but the quicker we act the cheaper it will be to resolve and less destructive the future will be.

Leave it some big big measures will be need just to secure basic needs water and food, but a few billion people will die first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlintyV

Just a question, do you think the earth changes have gotten to the point of no return? Is it too late to stop the changes regardless of what we do.

It's estimated we need to keep it under 450 parts per million in CO2 in the atmosphere and a quick visit to the ESRL tells us we're at 394.29 ppm which is certainly an increase over last year to keep us below the 2C of warming. Some scientists have have predicted we'll hit the tipping point within the next 5 years, but it seems not many people believe we'll be able to stay under that 450ppm limit.

We've had things like the Kyoto Protocol but with China and the USA refusing to sign it and actually polluted more and it pretty much wiped out the emission cuts made by Europe and other countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

Just a question, do you think the earth changes have gotten to the point of no return? Is it too late to stop the changes regardless of what we do.

The scientific community is of - or coming to - the consensus that the point of no return has either passed or is not possible to avoid. However, it is still possible to mitigate the severity of such changes by taking action - particularly because there are so many inter-connected changes that do not occur simultaneously. We cannot simply say "it's too late therefore why bother?".

Regardless of climate change mankind needs to use the resources of the planet sustainably. The most pressing problem facing the planet in the near future is a shortage of fresh water, which will hit the US south-east and Australia in the coming decades. Aquifers have been used for farming in a completely unsustainable manner and farms are running on borrowed time. Many farms in the US and Australia have already changed crops based upon water efficiency, rather than market value. Little has been done to curb water usage or invest in infrastructure and it's now only a matter of time before a crisis. It has been predicted in Australia that the city of Perth could become completely uninhabitable - that's a city with a population of nearly 2 million. Large scale desalination plants are being constructed but it's a very inefficient process and enormously power intensive.

A simplified analogy would be that everybody in our generation has been given a hundred thousand pounds / dollars / euros to live on for the rest of their lives and they've already blown half of it on cocaine and hookers. While there is no doubt that people will suffer further down the road, if people can moderate their actions now then they can help reduce the amount of poverty they will face later.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
DrakeN2k

Some people seam to not understand or want to be educated about renewable energy , they just say climate change is a scam. therefore lets burn fossil fuels for ever and ever and ever .

Oh by the way low educated people , they will run out and when the peak hits it will he felt hard.

Also people go on about our energy bills will hit ?10,000 a year in the future as we need to bill so many wind mills that don't work.

90% of energy bill rises were due to price rises not renewable energy. they never think what will the price of oil and gas be in 20 years time. I am going to bet it will twice what it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyJack

We have only been recording temperatures and weather related data for a short period of time and out of that time only a few larger cities have been keeping records. I think it is like a hundred years or less. Science can only come up with some assumptions. In reality we know very little for the billions of years that earth has been around. So what do we know. Weather is affected by the sun, volcanoes, humans, the ocean, space, lots more and probably lots more that we do not know.

I think that people hollering about global warming are just like some one saying 2012 is the end of the world. They don't know enough and yet try to convince everyone. I do not deny that things have been changing and are different. I just think it is part of a normal weather pattern that we know very little to nothing about and that we cannot control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlintyV

We have only been recording temperatures and weather related data for a short period of time and out of that time only a few larger cities have been keeping records. I think it is like a hundred years or less. Science can only come up with some assumptions. In reality we know very little for the billions of years that earth has been around. So what do we know. Weather is affected by the sun, volcanoes, humans, the ocean, space, lots more and probably lots more that we do not know.

I think that people hollering about global warming are just like some one saying 2012 is the end of the world. They don't know enough and yet try to convince everyone. I do not deny that things have been changing and are different. I just think it is part of a normal weather pattern that we know very little to nothing about and that we cannot control.

I wouldn't put the Mayan/2012 conspiracy people in with people who believe in science and the scientific data points towards global warming with man-made contributions and we can certainly have some control over it. I just don't understand how people can say no one knows when there's pretty much a solid consensus by scientific leading bodies that the planet is warming up and humans have contributed to it.

FYI, temperature data has been available from the 1850's onwards

Link to post
Share on other sites
McKay
temperature-history.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
rhianntp

Wow been measuring it for 30 years eh? thats a long time...heh..and yea, humans have been able to understand climate for what a hundred years or so ..even if it was 500 years.. as if thats even a millisecond in the scale of the earth and solar system..... gimmie a call in 10000 years when WI is under a mile of ice again and tell me how much anything we did today mattered... silly.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
We have only been recording temperatures and weather related data for a short period of time and out of that time only a few larger cities have been keeping records. I think it is like a hundred years or less. Science can only come up with some assumptions. In reality we know very little for the billions of years that earth has been around.

Look, if you don't have a clue what you're talking about just say so - don't make wild assumptions and blind guesses. Scientists have been able to accurately determine the constitution of the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years thanks to ice core analysis. Further, the balance of carbon-13 and carbon-14 isotopes in the atmosphere can accurately determine the source of CO2 emissions and they are overwhelming related to human activities (fossil fuels, cement production, etc); humans contributes more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than comes from natural sources. So can we please stop pretending that climate change is a theory or is not related to human activities? Factually that isn't true.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane Nokes

...and that chart shows what I was talking about when I said the melting events happen about once ever 150 years. :)

75 major swings if taken at an even up & down means about 37 of each, which comes out to about 120ish years between. So the math comes close to adding up. It looks like the cold periods are longer though typically so that makes sense still to come up with that 150.

So again folks, nothing to see if you look at historical weather trends. It's just the earth doing it's own thing. ;)

Look, if you don't have a clue what you're talking about just say so - don't make wild assumptions and blind guesses. Scientists have been able to accurately determine the constitution of the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years thanks to ice core analysis. Further, the balance of carbon-13 and carbon-14 isotopes in the atmosphere can accurately determine the source of CO2 emissions and they are overwhelming related to human activities (fossil fuels, cement production, etc); humans contributes more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than comes from natural sources. So can we please stop pretending that climate change is a theory or is not related to human activities? Factually that isn't true.

Ok, then care to explain why we are right on time for another event then if we've sped it up? Shouldn't it have happened sooner if we were causing a problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shiranui

Humans would have had Mars populated before anything major happens. The human race will live on.

I fear we will turn the Earth into another Venus, long before we get round to populating Mars.

Anyway, living on Mars will be crap and nothing like the original Total Recall - insufficient gravity, too cold and no tri-breasted hookers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rhianntp

At the risk of just throwing numbers out there....lets look at the total greenhouse gases human have contributed since the industrial revolution.. ok.. thats a bug number right?.. impressive.. now lets say the earth decides, on its own no less, to have a 10 year period where major eruptions happen say 40 % more often ...I'm no rocket scientist but I'm fairly certain those ten years would dwarf anything humans could possibly do...the point is the earth will long out live our species many times over...hell, come back in 50,000 years and you wont even see one recogizable feature to suggest we ever existed... and of course when the asteroid or comet eventually hit it will further render meaningless all our drama over what we tiny insignificant specs have done to the planet... makes for great bleeding heart nonsense, but not much else

I fear we will turn the Earth into another Venus, long before we get round to populating Mars.

Anyway, living on Mars will be crap and nothing like the original Total Recall - insufficient gravity, too cold and no tri-breasted hookers.

your fear is misplaced.. fear a tyranical government ready to put you in chains for eating a big mac or drinking a 16 oz soda and throwing the container in a landfill...heh

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
At the risk of just throwing numbers out there....

Baseless conjecture is baseless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyJack

Look, if you don't have a clue what you're talking about just say so - don't make wild assumptions and blind guesses. Scientists have been able to accurately determine the constitution of the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth over hundreds of thousands of years thanks to ice core analysis. Further, the balance of carbon-13 and carbon-14 isotopes in the atmosphere can accurately determine the source of CO2 emissions and they are overwhelming related to human activities (fossil fuels, cement production, etc); humans contributes more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than comes from natural sources. So can we please stop pretending that climate change is a theory or is not related to human activities? Factually that isn't true.

Come on. You seriously think you are smarter. We all know how to read and I have read as much as you. There is is even more that scientist are studying then what you have mentioned. Should I suggest you have no clue? My simple post and opinion which you did not like summarizes everything I am trying to express, but I will make it easier for you to read.

  • The earth has been around for a long time and we have a small record of that time.
  • Science still has a long way to go in order to increase our knowledge about weather.
  • People do not need to freak out like some people are.
  • We cannot control the weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
Come on. You seriously think you are smarter. We all know how to read and I have read as mush as you.

Honestly? Yes, I do believe that I am smarter than you. You came in here erroneously claiming that we only have temperature records for about a century and tried to use that to downplay the significance of climate change and undermine its scientific credibility. I provided evidence to the contrary, yet your 'rebuttal' of my post was to simply repeat your post again. You refused to address a single point I raised.

The definition of a discussion:

Consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions.

By failing to address any of the points I raised you have failed at a fundamental level to engage in a discussion. Therefore, I have nothing further to say to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane Nokes

By failing to address any of the points I raised you have failed at a fundamental level to engage in a discussion. Therefore, I have nothing further to say to you.

Ok, then the same goes for you. I addressed your point directly and you failed to even attempt to discuss it with me...so good to know when someone actually wants to discuss with you, you ignore it when a valid point is raised.

Pot, meet kettle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou

Ok, then the same goes for you. I addressed your point directly and you failed to even attempt to discuss it with me...so good to know when someone actually wants to discuss with you, you ignore it when a valid point is raised.

Calm down, I just hadn't got around to it. :)

Ok, then care to explain why we are right on time for another event then if we've sped it up? Shouldn't it have happened sooner if we were causing a problem?

My concern looking at the graph is the dramatic drop after the rise in temperatures following 1800, which coincides with the industrial revolution. Further, it hasn't been established that we haven't sped up climate change. We know that human activities dramatically exceed natural CO2 production and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we know that our activities have had an impact upon global temperatures. The graph attributes rises to solar activity yet a direct correlation has yet to be established (see Solar variation and Climate). And we know that solar activity proxies show no significant variation from previous centuries. I would need to know more about the way the graph was compiled and the examine the sources before making any further conclusions, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question more directly.

Most of the effects of climate change are yet to occur but we know that they are going to happen. Ice shelves are melting at a faster rate and we know that a sea levels will rise considerably over the next century. All we can say for certain is that humans activities are contributing to climate change and we should take action to mitigate that change. The consumption of fossil fuels is completely unsustainable and even setting aside climate change that should be a cause for concern.

The current ice age is rapidly coming to an end and we need to be prepared for that. It annoys me that people are obsessed with trying to quantity the exact extent of our impact. Obviously such information is important but it should not prevent us from taking action now. Unfortunately economic growth is deemed more important than the sustainability of the planet's resources or the impact upon the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane Nokes

Yes, but aren't you yourself trying to quantify the exact extent of our impact yourself?

The cycle is repeating as it usually does, and it's not varying from previous established norms as per ice core drilling. The ice caps melt on a periodic basis. The fact that it's happening again isn't a cause for alarm.

Now if evidence came up that showed that something like this had never happened before and wasn't part of a natural cycle then I'd be worried. However we're still within norms for previous cycle change events.

Look at it this way. You have a battery powered clock in your house. It ticks faster than it should when you put in fresh batteries (at least a lot of mine have) and it ticks slower when the batteries are low. You change the batteries at some point, and the cycle repeats. Now do you worry about the clock ticking faster when you replace the batteries or slower when they are running low? No. It's part of the norm. Now if the clock is not keeping time when you replace the batteries and is consistently slow (new behavior) then you know it's time to look at something being wrong.

I will however agree that usage of fossil fuels needs to stop...but only because I want to see us innovate on clean power cell tech since that will help us with space travel and in various other areas as well :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlintyV

Yes, but aren't you yourself trying to quantify the exact extent of our impact yourself?

The cycle is repeating as it usually does, and it's not varying from previous established norms as per ice core drilling. The ice caps melt on a periodic basis. The fact that it's happening again isn't a cause for alarm.

Now if evidence came up that showed that something like this had never happened before and wasn't part of a natural cycle then I'd be worried. However we're still within norms for previous cycle change events.

Just today NASA have shown that the ice caps have actually melted earlier and the most since they started recording in 1979.

"Implications are serious: the increased open water lowers the average albedo [reflectivity] of the planet, accelerating global warming; and we are also finding the open water causing seabed permafrost to melt, releasing large amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere." said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University.

"Measurements from submarines have shown that it has lost at least 40% of its thickness since the 1980s, and if you consider the shrinkage as well it means that the summer ice volume is now only 30% of what it was in the 1980s," he added.

So yes things are happening differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Ather Fawaz
      China's bitcoin mining empire is at odds with the country's pledge to go carbon-neutral
      by Ather Fawaz



      Researchers from Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences have said that China's power-hungry bitcoin mining empire could undermine the country's pledge to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and eventually go carbon neutral by 2060. The study, published Tuesday in Nature Communications, says that close to 40% of China's bitcoin mines are powered by coal and will produce 130.5 million metric tons of carbon emissions by 2024.

      Bitcoin, after growing fivefold in the past year alone, eclipsed the $50,000 threshold in February and reached a record high of over $61,000 in March. It is the largest of the 6,600 cryptocurrencies tracked by CoinGecko and makes up more than 50% of the entire $2 trillion market cap of cryptocurrency.

      Historically, the study claims that from January 1, 2016, through June 10, 2018, up to 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions were generated from bitcoin mining alone. As of April 2020, China alone accounted for 78.89% of the global blockchain operations. Should this trend continue, the emission output would exceed the total annual greenhouse gas emission output of Qatar and the Czech Republic.

      With cheap electricity rates in the country and companies growing more benign towards cryptocurrency, Bitcoin mining is predicted to become even more ubiquitous in the near future. A study by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance from August last year suggested that Bitcoin-related power consumption reached a record high last year with the equivalent of seven nuclear power plants (or 21.8 million solar panels) being pulled by the global mining industry alone.

      Moving forward, the study suggests that imposing carbon taxes alone is not enough to mitigate carbon emissions. Instead, the Chinese government should focus on shifting the industry to renewable sources of energy.

      Source: Guardian and ZDNet

    • By zikalify
      Nokia base stations to see huge power consumption reduction
      by Paul Hill



      Nokia has announced that it plans to halve its 5G base station power consumption over the next two years. The firm will aim towards these emission reductions by making “continuous improvements” to the software that controls the base stations and by developing new AirScale 5G mMIMO Base Station variants that use the latest SoCs which are more power-efficient.

      Commenting on the work to reduce the emissions of its base stations, Ari Kynäslahti, Head of Technology and Strategy at Nokia Mobile Networks, said:

      In its announcement, Nokia recognised that 5G is set to dramatically increase network traffic, therefore, it wants to implements techniques such as advanced sleep mode and other power-saving features to cut the energy usage.

      By reducing base station emissions, Nokia will be able to more easily work towards its wider goal of halving its 2019 emission by 2030, which it announced at the start of the month. It said that it is working towards new, more ambitious Science Based Targets (SBTs) that will bring it in line to meet the 1.5°C global warming scenario rather than the 2.0°C scenario.

    • By zikalify
      Nokia to halve its 2019 emissions by the decade's end
      by Paul Hill



      Nokia has today announced that it will reduce its emissions by 50% from its operations and products in use by the end of the decade compared to 2019. The Finnish firm has called its ambitions Science Based Targets (SBTs) and says they’re in line to meet a 1.5°C global warming scenario.

      The firm said that it created SBTs back in 2017 which would bring it in line with a 2.0°C global warming scenario but managed to reach 90% of its targets within its operations 11 years ahead of time so now it’s going for a more ambitious goal. The new targets will apply to almost 100% of the firm’s current portfolio and include emissions from logistics and assembly factories in its supply chain as well as from its own operations.

      Commenting on the news, Nokia’s President and CEO Pekka Lundmark said:

      Nokia is not alone in its efforts to drive down its emissions. Other tech firms including IBM, Amazon, Microsoft and Uber are part of The Climate Pledge which calls on signatories to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 ahead of the Paris Agreement deadline. Under the Paris Agreement, nations and the private sector have to bring down their emissions so much than global warming can be limited to 1.5°C by 2100.

    • By zikalify
      KaiOS teams up with Justdiggit to connect rural communities
      by Paul Hill



      KaiOS Technologies, the firm behind KaiOS, has announced a new partnership with Justdiggit, a Dutch-based foundation concerned with restoring degraded ecosystems. The two firms will supply 300 rural farmers in Tanzania with KaiOS smart feature phones to get information to them that will improve their livelihoods and help them to regreen their farms to fight desertification.

      Each of the devices come pre-loaded with a new Regreen App that has been developed by KaiOS. The content in the application is sourced from Justdiggit which advocates proven and scalable regreening techniques that have already been used on 60,000 hectares of farmland in Africa in three years.

      According to KaiOS, the threat of desertification and droughts in Africa is huge. It said that 350 million smallholder farmers already deal with these problems or are expected to in the coming years and they can lead to a range of problems including failed harvests and poverty which subsequently creates climate refugees who move to different parts of the world looking for a new way to get by.

      KaiOS phones are designed to be affordable and bridge the gap between feature phones and smartphones. While they typically use a feature phone design, they are equipped with apps such as WhatsApp, Google Maps, YouTube and Facebook. Bringing these devices to the 300 participants, not only helps them better manage their farms but also helps to close the digital divide.

      As an additional benefit to recipients, KaiOS devices come equipped with the Life app which can help provide users with health advice, financial education, digital skills and more.

      After using the devices for several weeks, KaiOS was keen to find out from participants whether they would pay for a device with 52% saying they would spend between $22-28. The firm said that devices with KaiOS already exist in the price range and that it’s a positive sign for the scalability and sustainability of this initiative.

      KaiOS is going to work with other partners in the future to scale up this initiative so that it can get devices into the hands of farmers across the African continent.

    • By Jay Bonggolto
      Facebook starts debunking myths about climate change in its information hub
      by Jay Bonggolto

      Facebook launched a new information center last year in an effort to connect people to science-based climate information. The Climate Science Information Center came after Facebook took a lot of flak from Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Tom Carper, Brian Schatz, and Sheldon Whitehouse for a "loophole" in its climate fact-checking program.

      Now, the information hub has received new improvements and is expanding to more countries. Facebook announced today that the center now has a new section where false claims about climate change are debunked. The new destination highlights common climate myths such as how global warming contributes to the reduced population of polar bears and false claims about the harmful effects of too much carbon dioxide for plants. Facebook has teamed up with experts from the George Mason University, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the University of Cambridge to quash these claims with current facts.

      Facebook is also expanding the information center to Belgium, Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Spain, South Africa, and Taiwan starting today. It's already available in the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK. In case the hub isn't available in your country yet, the service will soon connect you to the UN Environment Programme when you search for climate-related terms to help you find authoritative information about the climate crisis.

      In addition, the social networking site is now labeling posts about climate change in the UK with a banner that brings users to its climate information hub. The feature will go live in other countries soon.

      The new features mark Facebook's latest effort to remove lies about climate change from its platform, similar to how it addressed COVID-19 myths last year with the launch of its COVID-19 Information Center. However, it remains to be seen how the company will handle posts containing op-ed articles about climate change with little scientific basis, which was the main point of contention by a number of legislators last year.