Arctic sea ice melt at record level

[Shane Nokes]

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.

You're not paying attention. ;)

You're talking about recording that started in 1979. That's less than 35 years of data being used.

There are core samples that have been taken that show this is a repeating cycle that happens about once ever 150 years. They've looked at the oldest sections of the ice and this is nothing new.

I've already said this, but someone isn't reading. This is a normal cycle.

In fact here's a quote for you:

William Colgan, a research associate at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, said the July melt event is extremely rare, but not completely unheard of. He said an analysis of ice core records from Greenland Summit station, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point on the ice sheet, shows that the high elevation areas of Greenland have experienced melt about once every 150 years during the past 10,000 years.

So are you going to take 35 years of people staring at the ice...or 10,000 years worth of core samples that shows that this happens over and over again?

[FlintyV]

Sorry wrong.

A recent study concluded that while it's a natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (every 60-80 years) they estimated that only 5-30% loss of ice was due to the cycle and the rest was attributed to man-made warming.

[Shane Nokes]

Sorry wrong.

A recent study concluded that while it's a natural Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (every 60-80 years) they estimated that only 5-30% loss of ice was due to the cycle and the rest was attributed to man-made warming.

The core samples show it being every 150 years. So you're already studying the wrong length of time to measure this...not to mention that more than 30% of the ice is lost normally. Heck more than that was lost in 2010, so that already shows that it's bogus.

Also which study? Did they do core samples...or is this more of "well we just looked at weather patterns since we started going measurements and found this off" type data?

I trust the evidence that nature provides via thousands of years vs less than a century of observations on a planet that is billions of years old. :p

[FlintyV]

The core samples show it being every 150 years. So you're already studying the wrong length of time to measure this...not to mention that more than 30% of the ice is lost normally. Heck more than that was lost in 2010, so that already shows that it's bogus.

Also which study? Did they do core samples...or is this more of "well we just looked at weather patterns since we started going measurements and found this off" type data?

I trust the evidence that nature provides via thousands of years vs less than a century of observations on a planet that is billions of years old. :p

"more than 30% of the ice is lost normally. Heck more than that was lost in 2010, so that already shows that it's bogus."

Huh? :/ NASA said 4.1m sq km is said to have melted beating the previous low from 2007.. not sure how you're saying that's "bogus".

They based their study from thermal readings from satellite monitoring.

Even the increase in CO2 we find in ice core readings should show you that we're certainly going to see the effect of that in the form of global warming and increased methane released from more ice melting..

[Shane Nokes]

"more than 30% of the ice is lost normally. Heck more than that was lost in 2010, so that already shows that it's bogus."

Huh? :/ NASA said 4.1m sq km is said to have melted beating the previous low from 2007.. not sure how you're saying that's "bogus".

They based their study from thermal readings from satellite monitoring.

Even the increase in CO2 we find in ice core readings should show you that we're certainly going to see the effect of that in the form of global warming and increased methane released from more ice melting..

Quit basing everything off one source. Pick up some scientific journals and read more than just satellite results from NASA. Satellite results are not going to show you the same thing as actually digging into the ground and looking at the records stored there in the form of rock & ice.

If a satellite image from NASA didn't show a dinosaur fossil would you deny their existence because NASA couldn't see it on a satellite?

Would you trust their satellites to tell you the age of a piece of clay pot found buried in Latin America over the known methods of dating materials based on layering & carbon testing?

Seriously...fossil records & core samples are far more accurate at showing trends than a few years worth of satellite data...that's just common sense...

As regards my point. I didn't say when the most recent low was. I was referring to only 5-30% melt figures you give. Where did that even come from? That number isn't even accurate.

[FlintyV]

Quit basing everything off one source. Pick up some scientific journals and read more than just satellite results from NASA. Satellite results are not going to show you the same thing as actually digging into the ground and looking at the records stored there in the form of rock & ice.

If a satellite image from NASA didn't show a dinosaur fossil would you deny their existence because NASA couldn't see it on a satellite?

Would you trust their satellites to tell you the age of a piece of clay pot found buried in Latin America over the known methods of dating materials based on layering & carbon testing?

Seriously...fossil records & core samples are far more accurate at showing trends than a few years worth of satellite data...that's just common sense...

As regards my point. I didn't say when the most recent low was. I was referring to only 5-30% melt figures you give. Where did that even come from? That number isn't even accurate.

I've quoted many different sources and the melting figures of 4.10 million square kilometres are from NASA, so do please let me know how it's incorrect with actual figures contradicting it. It's weird you won't even consider other data that's not from core samples...

If a satellite image from NASA didn't show a dinosaur fossil would you deny their existence because NASA couldn't see it on a satellite?

"Would you trust their satellites to tell you the age of a piece of clay pot found buried in Latin America over the known methods of dating materials based on layering & carbon testing?"

What? :/ If that's the kind of direction this is going I'm out.

[Shane Nokes]

I've quoted many different sources and the melting figures of 4.10 million square kilometres are from NASA, so do please let me know how it's incorrect. It's sad you won't even consider other data that's not from core samples...

"Would you trust their satellites to tell you the age of a piece of clay pot found buried in Latin America over the known methods of dating materials based on layering & carbon testing?" Wha?

I didn't refute the size of the melt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I stated that it's a normal cycle and the samples prove this and you STILL are ignoring that point.

Done here...

[FlintyV]

I stated that it's a normal cycle and the samples prove this and you STILL are ignoring that point.

And I showed you recent evidence shows that while a normal cycle more ice has melted than ever and man-made warming contributed largely to it but you seems to have just glossed over that little nugget..

Nevermind. :rolleyes:

[Shane Nokes]

And I showed you recent evidence shows that while a normal cycle more ice has melted than ever and man-made warming contributed largely to it but you seems to have just glossed over that little nugget..

Nevermind. :rolleyes:

No I didn't ignore that. More ice has melted that ever since they started doing the modern measurements...

That's the part that I keep trying to point out. Read the words in the journal articles carefully. NASA states this is the worst recorded melt since they started taking measurements...not the worst ever found through other means.

Reading the whole articles and the words contained within in context is very important.

Here let me underline what you're saying and what I'm saying:

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

Yes since 1979...

I'm talking about 10,000 worth of melt data that shows there have been more severe melts before, and that this is a normal cycle that happens about once ever 150 years, as evidenced by 10,000 years worth of samples.

Ok let me put it this way...and if you argue with this I'm going to know there's something wrong with how you were taught to validate information...

Let's say you want to find out if Coke or Pepsi is more preferred.

Would you state that a sample of 35 people is more valid than a sample of 10,000 people?

[bj55555]

Here let me underline what you're saying and what I'm saying:

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

Yes since 1979...

And we've been measuring solar output for the past 50 years, and it's actually been steady and even declining. So how do you explain the ice melt?

I'm talking about 10,000 worth of melt data that shows there have been more severe melts before, and that this is a normal cycle that happens about once ever 150 years, as evidenced by 10,000 years worth of samples.

And if we compound that with anthropogenic effects how do you know that melts won't be at levels that are unprecedented in the past 10,000 years? I'm sure it was way warmer when the dinosaurs ruled the Earth too, but I don't want to live in that ****ing climate.

[Shane Nokes]

And we've been measuring solar output for the past 50 years, and it's actually been steady and even declining. So how do you explain the ice melt?

http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

It has? This says otherwise. In fact it says: "Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level."

They found that earlier studies showing other indications were faulty due to the testing methods.

Even NASA states that it was rising at a small rate every decade that was measurable, but has been fairly steady recently.

So since you stated it...provide a source...

[bj55555]

http://www.space.com...y-confirms.html

It has? This says otherwise. In fact it says: "Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.".

Exactly. You just proved my point. Do you know what "stabilized" means?

You denialists need to stop thinking so highly of your insight into AGW--as if you're onto some angle that Ph.D climate scientists are too stupid to have considered. Get real. They have access to way more data than you do, and considering something like cyclic solar output in their overall analsys is child's play for them. They've considered anything you can pull out of your ass already, and they've concluded that humans ARE having an affect on global temperatures AND we're capable of affecting them to a degree that will have severe consequences above any normal fluctuations.

[Shane Nokes]

Exactly. You just proved my point. Do you know what "stabilized" means?

Yes I do...it doesn't mean declining, and note 'higher-than-historic level' which means that the levels rose, and have stuck there...for the period where we are noting higher temperatures.

You increase the level of heat, and the surrounding environment rises in temperature to match until it reaches a certain point, which is called warming...

This is some of the simplest science they teach to grade school children. Something gets hot...the surrounding area gets warmer as well until it reaches an average...

Also our current cycle (referred to as 24) has a very low number of sunspots. Recently it has been discovered that sunspots actually cause lower temperatures due to the amount of radiation they block. The lower the number of sunspots the higher average temperature...which is precisely what we're seeing...

[BillyJack]

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.

I know that scientist have been examining ice cores for years. I also know they have other methods for estimating the temperature. There is more than examining ice cores. They can examine tree cores, coral reefs, layers of dirt, etc. I also know that there is some incidents like volcanoes, etc that are recorded up to thousands of years ago too. However, I am also not talking about those individual records since they only a few incidents and there were no instruments used. I was talking about no **** recorded data. If you read my post I say "We have only been recording temperatures and weather related data for a short period of time..." I also was too lazy to look up the exact date we start recording weather but I do know it was within a few hundred years and closer to a hundred years. I also know that even though we started recording data it was limited to certain locations and increased locations over time. I was wrong in the fact that I thought it was slightly less than a hundred years but I read on Wikipedia that they started instrumental recording around 1850.

http://en.wikipedia....perature_record

I am not trying to down play climate change. I even stated that there is no doubt changes happening and I am not undermining science. You think that I am refusing to talk about your point but you also refuse to understand mine. I am only stating that I wanted to share my opinion and keep it simple. I didn't feel like looking up references and backing up my claims. I am mentioning what I know from what I have read just as you are.

Also, we have been examining each others posts, providing arguments and comments to each other so we are in a discussion.

Since you are smarter. Maybe you can provide for me some links or references for temperature and weather record keeping for a larger period of time then from what I have found. It has to be for a bunch of locations and on a regular interval. And do not tell me what scientist have discovered. I want records taken at the exact time of the weather.

[bj55555]

Yes I do...it doesn't mean declining, and note 'higher-than-historic level' which means that the levels rose, and have stuck there...for the period where we are noting higher temperatures.

http://www.metoffice...output-research

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

And another thing...

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

IOW, solar variance alone does not affect global temperatures all that much. So stop thinking you're onto some angle that scientists haven't considered. Think you're smarter than a Ph.D climate scientist? Really?

This is some of the simplest science they teach to grade school children. Something gets hot...the surrounding area gets warmer as well until it reaches an average...

LMAO! Do you honestly think it takes 30, 40 years for the temperature of the Earth to reach an equilibrium point with this stabilized, higher output from the Sun?

[Shane Nokes]

LMAO! Do you honestly think it takes 30, 40 years for the temperature of the Earth to reach an equilibrium point with this stabilized, higher output from the Sun?

Let me show you a little quote. This is in response to what would happen if the sun were to just completely die this instant:

"Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable ?400?, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet?s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space." -David Stevenson, Professor of Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology.

It would take millions of years for our planet to cool only a few hundred degrees even if the sun were completely gone...so yes, the changes are slow.

I mean come on...again did you not pay attention in basic science courses when they discussed how heat transfer works?

This isn't an oven that has a small contained space. It's a vast distance...and yes it takes a while for things to average out.

What heats faster using a candle...a 16oz glass of water...or a 5 gallon jug?

[bj55555]

Let me show you a little quote. This is in response to what would happen if the sun were to just completely die this instant:

"Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable ?400?, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet?s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space." -David Stevenson, Professor of Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology.

It would take millions of years for our planet to cool only a few hundred degrees even if the sun were completely gone...so yes, the changes are slow.

I mean come on...again did you not pay attention in basic science courses when they discussed how heat transfer works?

This isn't an oven that has a small contained space. It's a vast distance...and yes it takes a while for things to average out.

What heats faster using a candle...a 16oz glass of water...or a 5 gallon jug?

Nice quote mine. Here's the full quote.

Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0?F. In a year, it would dip to ?100?. The top layers of the oceans would freeze over, but in an apocalyptic irony, that ice would insulate the deep water below and prevent the oceans from freezing solid for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable ?400?, the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet?s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space, explains David Stevenson, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology.

IOW, in one year, the AVERAGE temperature would be almost as low as the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth.

Even if we're talking about the average temperature of the Earth increasing from something like 15 degrees C to 20 degrees C, which seems like a huge change, we're actually talking about a change from 288.16 degrees K to 293.16 degrees K. That's a tiny variance, and it wouldn't take decades for the Earth to reach an equilibrium for such a small fluctuation in temperature if the Sun's output suddenly changed enough to even create that level of change in the Earth's temperature in the first place.

The whole point is that the Sun's output doesn't actually change all that much, and it can't be the sole reason for the change in temperatures that we are realizing.

Sun spot cycles are 11 years, so we should have seen a trough and a peak in the average global temperatures if sun spots were all that meaningful to changes in global temperatures, yet we don't see this correlation.

[Shane Nokes]

Actually we do...but that's ok. You don't like providing sources, which means my part in this discussion is actually over. I said that before, but thought that you might actually be interested in a debate...but nope.

[bj55555]

Actually we do...but that's ok. You don't like providing sources, which means my part in this discussion is actually over. I said that before, but thought that you might actually be interested in a debate...but nope.

Source? You mean like that little quote mine of yours?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Moved

[Richteralan]

The climate is changing, that's for sure.

But after reading these articles ad nauseum, I still have one big question: Does this process can be changed by human? Or more specifically, limiting the CO2 output?

[Hum]

^ You could produce synthetic meats, and stop mass breeding of cattle, livestock.

Humans could reduce the reproduction, and excessive population.

We can plant massive numbers of trees, to decrease CO2.

This will be done in the future, first by China.

[Growled Member]

My question is what is going to happen when all the ice has melted?

[Hum]

My question is what is going to happen when all the ice has melted?

It covers up Florida :p