Arctic Sea Ice Melting Three Times Faster Than Projected


#juan
#1
Arctic sea ice is melting three times faster than many scientists have projected, U.S. researchers reported Monday, just days ahead of the next major international report on climate change.
Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado in Boulder, using actual measurements, concluded Arctic sea ice has declined at an average rate of about 7.8 per cent a decade between 1953 and 2006.
By contrast, 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-sponsored climate research group, estimated an average rate of decline of 2.5 per cent a decade over the same period, the researchers said.


http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...te-arctic.html
 
Stretch
#2
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming . New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
 
#juan
#3
One of the problems with losing sea ice is that less ice, means less heat is reflected back into space so global warming is self-feeding. The more ice we lose, the faster the warming.
 
Libra Girl
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming . New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

Thanks for the link Stretch... I am very interested in the planet Mars. We have had some awsome feedback over the last few years. I find it's terrain achingly beautiful.
 
Walter
#5
Increasing sea ice in the south.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=10302
 
Blackleaf
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

Just like the world did 10,000 years ago at the end of the most recent Ice Age, when the Earth warmed at such a rapid rate that average global temperatures rose by 10 degrees in just 100 years, causing polar ice - which extended right down as far as the English Channel - to melt causing sea levels to rise.

But we can hardly blame that global warming on human activity. So why is this current warming of the Earth being blamed on human industry?

A recent survey found that the vast majority of people in Britain do not believe in man-made global warming. Any warming of the globe is just perceived to be natural, something which has occured for millions of years.
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 1st, 2007 at 12:53 PM..
 
#juan
#7
Quote:

But we can hardly blame that global warming on human activity. So why is this current warming of the Earth being blamed on human industry?

Since the start of the industrial revolution, man has dumped around 8 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The rise in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the rise in global temperatures can be proven. This is hardly new information.
 
gopher
#8
National Geographic television and PBS have presented programming which proves that ice shelves are receding. They also point out that there is evidence of similar events in past eons. But what is worrisome is how much faster this receding has been in recent years. Let's hope it's a trend that will soon end.
 
RomSpaceKnight
#9
Yes, weather patterns are cyclical. But the huge impact humans are having on the atmosphere is far far above anything that "naturally" occurs.
 
Walter
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by RomSpaceKnight View Post

Yes, weather patterns are cyclical. But the huge impact humans are having on the atmosphere is far far above anything that "naturally" occurs.

Humans are natural.
 
#juan
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Humans are natural.

Humans stopped being natural when they started building fires and cooking their food.
 
darkbeaver
#12




The rich World's policy on greenhouse gas now seems clear: millions will die

Our governments have set the wrong targets to tackle climate change using outdated science, and they know it

By George Monbiot

05/01/07 "
The Guardian " -- - Rich nations seeking to cut climate change have this in common: they lie. You won't find this statement in the draft of the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was leaked to the Guardian last week. But as soon as you understand the numbers, the words form before your eyes. The governments making genuine efforts to tackle global warming are using figures they know to be false.

The British government, the European Union and the United Nations all claim to be trying to prevent "dangerous" climate change. Any level of climate change is dangerous for someone, but there is a broad consensus about what this word means: two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. It is dangerous because of its direct impacts on people and places (it could, for example, trigger the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the collapse of the Amazon rainforest) and because it is likely to stimulate further warming, as it encourages the world's natural systems to start releasing greenhouse gases.
The aim of preventing more than 2C of warming has been adopted overtly by the UN and the European Union, and implicitly by the British, German and Swedish governments. All of them say they are hoping to confine the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level that would prevent such a rise. And all of them know that they have set the wrong targets, based on outdated science. Fearful of the political implications, they have failed to adjust to the levels the new research demands.

This isn't easy to follow, but please bear with me, as you cannot understand the world's most important issue without grappling with some numbers. The average global temperature is affected by the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This concentration is usually expressed as "carbon dioxide equivalent". It is not an exact science - you cannot say that a certain concentration of gases will lead to a precise increase in temperature - but scientists discuss the relationship in terms of probability. A paper published last year by the climatologist Malte Meinshausen suggests that if greenhouse gases reach a concentration of 550 parts per million, carbon dioxide equivalent, there is a 63-99% chance (with an average value of 82%) that global warming will exceed two degrees. At 475 parts per million (ppm) the average likelihood is 64%. Only if concentrations are stabilised at 400 parts or below is there a low chance (an average of 28%) that temperatures will rise by more than two degrees.

The IPCC's draft report contains similar figures. A concentration of 510ppm gives us a 33% chance of preventing more than two degrees of warming. A concentration of 590ppm gives us a 10% chance. You begin to understand the scale of the challenge when you discover that the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (using the IPCC's formula) is 459ppm. We have already exceeded the safe level. To give ourselves a high chance of preventing dangerous climate change, we will need a programme so drastic that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere end up below the current concentrations. The sooner this happens, the greater the chance of preventing two degrees of warming.




 
Walter
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Humans stopped being natural when they started building fires and cooking their food.

Humans have no choice but to be natural. Some say we are natural because we are part of creation and others say we are natural because we evolved. We are of this Earth, therefore everything we do is natural.
 
Pangloss
#14
Darkbeaver: nice find - good post.

Walter - are you deliberately missing the point?

Pangloss
 
MHz
#15
At the current temp, the season for growing crops extends only so far north, as the climate warms up that growing season would migrate north also. Would the amount of 'farmland' increase or decrease overall? (what is lost in the south is gained in the north)
 
mt_pockets1000
#16
Yes there's more ice in the south, and 150+ vessels stuck off Newfoundland this spring proves it to me. It engulfed them like a web. I predict that much ice again next year and for many years to come. Right off White Bay is iceberg alley where the Labrador Current runs by the Baie Verte peninsula. It's an amazing sight to see the ice move like a river down the west side of White Bay and run out the same time on the east side...two moving masses going in opposite directions 25km across. It defies logic when you look at it. If you're ever in Fleur de Lys ask for directions to Partridge Point If the ice is in the bay and the moon is full you got yourself a phenomenon.

As for humans being natural, of course we are. If we're unnatural then what the heck are we........MARTIANS? Hey, there's a thought....with Mars warming up maybe we call all go there. Drag along a couple giraffes, monkeys, chickens, you know...the two by two stuff....and start all over again....yeah right.

Seriously though, we are all of this earth. She's all we got mates. I'm still on the fence whether it's a man-made problem or a natural cycle though. Neither side has convinced me yet. I suspect it's a bit of both. It's natural in the fact that man is helping speed up the process but nature will fix it by eliminating enough of us so that we won't be adding to the problem anymore...if you follow my drift....ice drift that is.

My 2c
 
Walter
#17
Wait...maybe Al Gore, David Skuzuli and the IPCC got it all wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428170229.htm
 
Pangloss
#18
Interesting stuff, walter - but I'd need to see more research as smart and thorough as that to make me seriously doubt all the scholarship that has gone on so far.

Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, of course.

Pangloss
 
snfu73
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Humans have no choice but to be natural. Some say we are natural because we are part of creation and others say we are natural because we evolved. We are of this Earth, therefore everything we do is natural.

Then we can just as naturally make changes to try and alter our lifestyles to try and lessen our impact on the environment.
 
snfu73
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Wait...maybe Al Gore, David Skuzuli and the IPCC got it all wrong.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428170229.htm

Ironically, any efforts we make to reduce global warming that has been influenced by man, also can have positive effects on our health...less smog, less pollutants in the air will reduce incidences of asthma, cancer, heart and lung issues, etc. Pollution can stunt the growth of trees which helps to suck carbon dioxide from the air. Even if you don't believe that man is having an impact on the climate, any changes that we can make are still very beneficial.

I think one of the largest issues here is the speed in which things appear to be happening. The science behind the concept of global warming as influenced by humans is very sound. It makes sense. We are all experiencing the effects. And is all happening very fast.
 
Walter
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

I think one of the largest issues here is the speed in which things appear to be happening. The science behind the concept of global warming as influenced by humans is very sound. It makes sense. We are all experiencing the effects. And is all happening very fast.

I wish it would happen faster here. We've had a very cold April and May is still cool here in Ontario.
 
#juan
#22
There is no doubt that the sea ice is retreating. There is also no doubt that that retreat is quickening. Recently there has been news that Polar Bears have been drowning because they can't reach their food on the sea ice. Polar bears have been hunting seal on the sea ice for about seventy thousand years. When is there enough evidence?

 
Walter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

There is no doubt that the sea ice is retreating. There is also no doubt that that retreat is quickening. Recently there has been news that Polar Bears have been drowning because they can't reach their food on the sea ice. Polar bears have been hunting seal on the sea ice for about seventy thousand years.

When Greenland was green enough for farming 1000 years ago, where did the Polar Bears do their hunting since there would have obviously been warmer temperatures than now to permit farming on Greenland? Did they die out and then reappear? Did they hibernate for a few hundred years?
 
#juan
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

When Greenland was green enough for farming 1000 years ago, where did the Polar Bears do their hunting since there would have obviously been warmer temperatures than now to permit farming on Greenland? Did they die out and then reappear? Did they hibernate for a few hundred years?

The answer is simple. You are wrong. The Greenland ice sheet has been there for a hundred thousand years.
 
Walter
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

The answer is simple. You are wrong. The Greenland ice sheet has been there for a hundred thousand years.

The Norse were farming Greenland for hundreds of years until it became too cold. The ice sheet has been there a long time but it is bigger now than it was 1000 years ago.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
 
TenPenny
#26
I was going to comment, but you beat me to it, Walter.
 
Tonington
#27
Actually the Greenland Ice shelf is thousands of years old, and the vast majority of the land under the ice is permafrost. Whonamed the Island Greenland? Erik the Red, I'll bet he wasn't "red". He was also in exile, and what would you name an island if you wanted to attract followers, Frozen chunk of Ice Island?

Just thought I'd add to the original post, that IPCC acknowledged their models had underscored the ice retreat, the reason being they use many global models, which will be more conservative in the estimates than a regional model like this study.
 
TenPenny
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Just thought I'd add to the original post, that IPCC acknowledged their models had underscored the ice retreat, the reason being they use many global models, which will be more conservative in the estimates than a regional model like this study.

I agree that long term climate change is a problem, and I have no doubt that it is partly due to human activity.

That said, I always chuckle when the IPCC acknowledges their models gave incorrect results, but oddly enough, it's always that things are worse than they predicted.....in other words, they're often wrong, but only by underestimating. The old credibility score takes a hit.
 
#juan
#29
And for general information, the Greenland ice sheet, that still covers most of Greenland, in 2006, contained 2.85 million cubic kilometers of ice.
 

Similar Threads

13
Obama is projected to win.
by jjaycee98 | Oct 7th, 2008
3
Melting Poles!
by dancing-loon | Apr 30th, 2008