This summer may see first ice-free North Pole

[Redmonton_Rebel]

****, you're dense. The point was "This summer may see first ice-free North Pole". I suggested that I don't think ice will totally disappear even though it is disappearing in massive amounts all over the north.
I didn't miss the point; you only deluded yourself into thinking I did.
Your depth of thought is pretty anorexic.

Wow, somebodies got a fragile ego.

Just to make it clear, the Arctic pack ice which will almost certainly disappear in the summertime in the near future(including the ice over the North Pole), is a separate body from the Greenland ICE SHEET.

Why even bring it up here, do you want to confuse the issue, that is the pattern of climate change denial a position you support based on your posts? It's pretty cynical to use underhanded tactics then attack someone who's trying to be as objective as possible.

 

[L Gilbert]

If you read the article that i posted you'll see the habit of deceptive recycling reports..

I read it. Apparently you haven't been keeping current with any information about Antarctic ice loss and prefer hanging onto possibly spurious opinion.

sold always in the most dramatic and emotional of language.. 'collapse' 'disappearance'. that bear no relation to reality. They're just looking for easy saps who soak up this nonsense as Gospel truth.

The problem with your hyposthesis is that you seem to think no-one can look deeper than those dramatic and emotional terms except yourself.
Get over yourself. You are nowhere near as intelligent as you seem to think you are.

You are just going to have to look deeply enough at the motivation and tactics of the AGW lobby.. to realize that it is a pack of lies.. by a pack of liars.... and their running dogs in the press.

Nah. I prefer to look at data and avoid political, media, and lobbyist interpretations.

 

[beaker]

I posted this elsewhere, but it fits here as well.


http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html


It points to the dramatic increase in the Ice Sheet of Antarctica... There is a cyclical flux of high and low temperatures in comparison to norms, often fluctuating between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.. but also as we've seen this summer, between East (Eurasia) and West (North America). Unfortunately for AGW demagogues.. nothing points to anything but a cycle of temperatures within the normal range. NOTHING to support AGW.

I'm sure you'll see the focus change again when localized events such as El Nino in the north... or El Nina in the southern hemisphere reverse at some point.. when the media will start screaming about disappearing Antarctic Ice or droughts in Africa. :roll:

This is just a strange thing to say, even from denialist demagogues. All the research of the thousands of scientists put into the IPCC reports, concerning climate change, effects and costs, and adaptations, all point to something quite seriously more than temperature cycles. The disappearing ice, the migration of plants, diseases, insects, birds, etc. to adapt to the changes occurring, the risks and expenses as recognized by the worlds insurance companies, the military preparedness that governments are requiring because of climate change. All these point to the concern about the serious problems we are going to encounter because of climate change.

And what points back the other way? People with a mania for the status quo. strange.

 

[L Gilbert]

Wow, somebodies got a fragile ego.

lol You just keep that impression if it makes your bum hum.

Just to make it clear, the Arctic pack ice which will almost certainly disappear in the summertime in the near future(including the ice over the North Pole), is a separate body from the Greenland ICE SHEET.

Ya think? I learned that decades ago. Part of your problem seems to be thinking you need to repeat the blatantly obvious over and over again.

Why even bring it up here,.

I told you, I guess you didn't understand.
Again; my point is that it is not just the pole that might lose a lot of ice, it is other places in the north that are also losing ice. And that I doubt ALL the ice will disappear.

do you want to confuse the issue,

You are only confusing yourself.

that is the pattern of climate change denial a position you support based on your posts?

lmao No. I thought it was pretty obvious I have no denial at all about climate change.

It's pretty cynical to use underhanded tactics then attack someone who's trying to be as objective as possible

What underhanded tactics? You are the one confusing yourself, not me.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

lol You just keep that impression if it makes your bum hum.

[/B]Ya think? I learned that decades ago. Part of your problem seems to be thinking you need to repeat the blatantly obvious over and over again.

I told you, I guess you didn't understand.
Again; my point is that it is not just the pole that might lose a lot of ice, it is other places in the north that are also losing ice. And that I doubt ALL the ice will disappear. You are only confusing yourself. lmao No. I thought it was pretty obvious I have no denial at all about climate change. What underhanded tactics? You are the one confusing yourself, not me.

The issue isn't about some small pool of water opening up at the North Pole, it' about the eventual and probably permanent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic in the summer months with serious consequences for the biotas(biological communities) and the regional climate. Having dark sea water absorbing most of the solar radiation in the summer months when before the ice cover reflected most of back into space is going to have a significant effect on accelerated warming in the region.

The Greenland Ice Sheet on the other hand, in paticular the northern portion is probably going to remain present for decades if not centuries and the processes causing its breakdown are different than with the sea ice which is melted from the bottom by a warming ocean.

And while you seem open to the existance of climate change you also refuse to accept the strong possibility that human activity is behind it even though we're the source of over 30 MILLION tons a day of the most important GHG in the atmosphere CO2. Far more than the natural sources of new carbon dioxide being produced, geological activity. With habitat changes like extensive deforestation, mono-culture agriculture and creating ocean dead zones we're also destroying some of the most important carbon sinks on the planet.

You also claimed I believe that massive blooms of ocean phytoplankton have replaced these reservoirs, but don't account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are at record heights and still climbing. Clearly we're having a major impact on some of the most important moderating systems in the global environment, denying that is a form climate change denial, you admit there's an issue but remove any responsibility from us even in the face of strong evidence of a causual link. And therefore object to policy changes that can mitigate the problem.

Research done at NASA indiates that when atmospheric levels of CO2 delcined to about 450ppm the glaciation of Antarctica began about 34 Mya, before that the Earth was free of ice at it's poles. We're now approaching that limit and may even be inside the margin of error already meaning the eventual breakdown of all ice cover on the planet. Greenland isn't going to be free of that event, the stable ice sheet in East Antarctica will probably be the last to go centuries from now if we continue to drive up levels of CO2, CH4, N2O and other postive forcings.

Maybe you're intentions are true, I don't know, I do know that there are entire threads here that are based on how ignorant people are about the science and how proud they are of that fact and their ignorance based denial. You seem resistant to that kind of behaviour, so hopefully this is my misunderstanding.

 

[L Gilbert]

The issue isn't about some small pool of water opening up at the North Pole, it' about the eventual and probably permanent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic in the summer months with serious consequences for the biotas(biological communities) and the regional climate. Having dark sea water absorbing most of the solar radiation in the summer months when before the ice cover reflected most of back into space is going to have a significant effect on accelerated warming in the region.

Ya think? Really? I thought we were talking about ice disappearance from frost-free fridges.

The Greenland Ice Sheet on the other hand, in paticular the northern portion is probably going to remain present for decades if not centuries and the processes causing its breakdown are different than with the sea ice which is melted from the bottom by a warming ocean.

Try again. Most of Greenland's ice is disappearing from below, just like as in the Antarctic.

And while you seem open to the existance of climate change you also refuse to accept the strong possibility that human activity is behind it even though we're the source of over 30 MILLION tons a day of the most important GHG in the atmosphere CO2.

Again, you keep insisting upon things about me that I have shown are untrue. I am not anti-AGW. Get it?
Grow up.

Far more than the natural sources of new carbon dioxide being produced, geological activity. With habitat changes like extensive deforestation, mono-culture agriculture and creating ocean dead zones we're also destroying some of the most important carbon sinks on the planet.

So? The planet will evolve. It always does.

You also claimed I believe that massive blooms of ocean phytoplankton have replaced these reservoirs,

Wrong, I claimed that you ignore stuff like that until someone like me brings it up.

but don't account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are at record heights and still climbing.

As well as algae populations rising, probably generating speciation, and other things the planet comes up with to compensate.

Clearly we're having a major impact on some of the most important moderating systems in the global environment, denying that is a form climate change denial, you admit there's an issue but remove any responsibility from us

Bull****. Nowhere did I do that. What I said was that we exaggerated the natural cycle.
Grow up.

even in the face of strong evidence of a causual link. And therefore object to policy changes that can mitigate the problem.

Nope. I don't object to sensible policies. I haven't seen much of that yet, though.

Research done at NASA indiates that when atmospheric levels of CO2 delcined to about 450ppm the glaciation of Antarctica began about 34 Mya, before that the Earth was free of ice at it's poles.

Later research says that at least Antarctica was NOT totally ice-free.

We're now approaching that limit and may even be inside the margin of error already meaning the eventual breakdown of all ice cover on the planet. Greenland isn't going to be free of that event, the stable ice sheet in East Antarctica will probably be the last to go centuries from now if we continue to drive up levels of CO2, CH4, NO2 and other postive forcings.

So? Like I said before, I think it's too late to think we can stop the process even if we did manage to stop polluting altogether (which is pretty much impossible anyway).

Maybe you're intentions are true, I don't know, I do know that there are entire threads here that are based on how ignorant people are about the science and how proud they are of that fact and their ignorance based denial. You seem resistant to that kind of behaviour, so hopefully this is my misunderstanding.

You can reach your own conclusions.

 

[petros]

The prediction isn't for the ice cover to be gone over the entire Arctic in the summertime, it's for the sea ice to melt in the summertime..

I predict it will freeze every winter.

 

[JLM]

That will be nice, now there will be rush for the first person to swim at the North Pole and that will attract vendors and pretty soon it will be like Coney Island! :lol:

 

[coldstream]

This is just a strange thing to say, even from denialist demagogues. All the research of the thousands of scientists put into the IPCC reports, concerning climate change, effects and costs, and adaptations, all point to something quite seriously more than temperature cycles. The disappearing ice, the migration of plants, diseases, insects, birds, etc. to adapt to the changes occurring, the risks and expenses as recognized by the worlds insurance companies, the military preparedness that governments are requiring because of climate change. All these point to the concern about the serious problems we are going to encounter because of climate change.

And what points back the other way? People with a mania for the status quo. strange.

That's a joke.. a lot of selective and anecdotal nonsense.. contrived to drive a political agenda. They know full well that climate is always in flux... and that carbon, much less human emitted carbon account for such fractional elements in the atmosphere.. (6 of the 44000 million metric tons (GT) of suspended and circulating in oceans, land mass and atmosphere are human based.... carbon itself accounts for only 4 of 10,000 parts of the atmosphere).. that it is an insult to all common sense to accuse it of dramatic climate shifts.

NONE of the predictions of the Climate Models have come true so far.. and yet it is given the credence not just as a hypothesis now... but as a proven LAW. Calling this bunk 'science' is an insult to the scientific method.. and to the scientists who have been badgered into agreeing with it by the pervasive, fear based orthodoxy of AGW.

It's an insult because it treats science not as an empircal entity.. but the product of a belief system.. a major facet of cult of the the 'enviroment'... and its idol of a pristine, unblemished ecosystem despoiled by the pestilance of humankind.

All real measures of the climate of the last 150 years indicate a global equilibrium, with many smaller cycles and mico climates, that produce floods and droughts, fair weather and foul.. BUT never of prolonged duration covering decades.. and never exceeding parameters that would define a radical new climate epoch.

 

[Tonington]

They know full well that climate is always in flux... and that carbon, much less human emitted carbon account for such fractional elements in the atmosphere.

Suess effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, a large fraction actually. A small fraction of the yearly flux, a large fraction of the total increase over the past 200 years or so.

(6 of the 44000 million metric tons (GT) of suspended and circulating in oceans, land mass and atmosphere are .... carbon itself accounts for only 4 of 10,000 parts of the atmosphere).. that it is an insult to all common sense to accuse it of dramatic climate shifts.

Logical fallacy. Botulinum toxin will kill at doses as low as 0.0000000001 gram per kilogram of body weight.

Lots of things in reality can cause dramatic things to occur at very small doses and concentrations.

NONE of the predictions of the Climate Models have come true so far.. and yet it is given the credence not just as a hypothesis now... but as a proven LAW. Calling this bunk 'science' is an insult to the scientific method.. and to the scientists who have been badgered into agreeing with it by the pervasive, fear based orthodoxy of AGW.

You keep saying none of the model predictions have come true, which is patently false.

Model predicts warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf (1980)
Data verifies model prediction;
Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends : Abstract : Nature

There's more than a dozen other model predictions I can link to that were corroborated by observations, which I can link to after I get back from the movie theater.

 

[coldstream]

The topic stated that the Polar Ice was melting. One of the original claims of AGW that permanent melting of ice would raise sea levels.. enough to inundate Pacific Islands.. drown Manhattan.. redefine coastlines, in some cases by hundreds of miles, as sea level rose enough to inundate all areas at sea level.. NONE of it has happened. All coastline erosion can be explained by normal tidal and current processes.. so now they move on.. with other scare tactics. Nothing the AGW political establishments states can be trusted.. none of it has anything to do with science.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Ya think? Really? I thought we were talking about ice disappearance from frost-free fridges.

We're talking about the entire global climate being changed.

Try again. Most of Greenland's ice is disappearing from below, just like as in the Antarctic.

That's inaccurate.

Much of the loss of ice in Greenland is due to surface melt creating freshwater lakes on the ice sheet surface which are then rapidly emptied to the sheet base by moulins where they lubricate the flow and accelerate the loss of ice through the outflow glaciers like Jakobshavn. The Zwally effect.

The Arctic sea ice pack is floating on a body that can undergo rapid changes in temperature meaning it could break down very quickly.

Again, you keep insisting upon things about me that I have shown are untrue. I am not anti-AGW. Get it?
Grow up.

uhuh I do not see the cause of global warming being attributed to human activities, though. The planet has been going through the cycles of warming and cooling over thousands of centuries. I think (based upon a lot of reading) we've merely extended the latest warming stage of a cycle.

You say it's happening but it's not caused by us, that's still denial.

How can we significantly alter the concentration of such an important GHG without also significantly altering the radiative balance of the planet. It's probably not a coincidence that as atmospheric levels of CO2 increase so do indications of a warmer global environment, like melting ice.

So? The planet will evolve. It always does.

Yes, but sometimes without many of the species that were present at the start of the rapid changes. Most of the major extinction events are associated with rapid changes in the atmosphere that rapidly drive the climate into a new state.

We're closely reproducing events that led to things like the Permian extinction, and you're not concerned?

Wrong, I claimed that you ignore stuff like that until someone like me brings it up.

Also inaccurate, I'm looking at key indicators like atmospheric concentrations of CO2 , if they keep going up it's still a serious issue.

And the oceans are also undergoing significant changes that will affect the survival of plankton like ocean acidification. Ocean acidity has already increased by over 25% and is predicted to go as high as 100-150% by the end of the century.

As well as algae populations rising, probably generating speciation, and other things the planet comes up with to compensate.

Given enough time, but what we're doing isn't taking that into account, it's classic bottom line thinking with no thought for tomorrow, many of the natural systems simply aren't being given the time to respond, if we allow them to remain in the first place. There's also industrial mining, farming, fishing, energy extraction and more. The Gulf of Mexico is full of fine particulate oil after the BP fiasco alone, that doesn't promote ecological health at a time when climate change is stressing the natural systems.

Bull****. Nowhere did I do that. What I said was that we exaggerated the natural cycle.
Grow up.

uhuh I do not see the cause of global warming being attributed to human activities, though. The planet has been going through the cycles of warming and cooling over thousands of centuries. I think (based upon a lot of reading) we've merely extended the latest warming stage of a cycle.

what does this mean, you don't sound like you think the extensive impacts of humans on the globe are responsible for climate change.

Nope. I don't object to sensible policies. I haven't seen much of that yet, though.

In this situation the only sensible policy is to find ways to reduce CO2 emssions while increasing carbon sinks like forests.

Later research says that at least Antarctica was NOT totally ice-free.

The entire planet was, there was tropical conditions in the Arctic millions of year ago, with dinosaurs and later after their disappearance things like crocodiles. Ice at the poles in the summertime is a recent development in geological terms and one that will inevitably disappear as we force the globe into a warmer state. The ice isn't suddenly going to hit a magical wall past which further retreat is impossible.

So? Like I said before, I think it's too late to think we can stop the process even if we did manage to stop polluting altogether (which is pretty much impossible anyway).

So we can stop the worst effects if we reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, people who claim it will cost too much are only looking at the immediate bottom line, not the eventual balancing out which will occure on the order of a few decades or more.

You can reach your own conclusions.

I am, I think you've come part of the way, but don't want to face the full consequences of our actions.

 

[Nuggler]

8O.......I can definitely say, without a shadow of a doubt, Eastern Ontario is for sure an ice free zone this summer.


HOT ice free zone.

yup

 

[lone wolf]

Not much cooler up here north'a 46....

 

[Tonington]

The topic stated that the Polar Ice was melting. One of the original claims of AGW that permanent melting of ice would raise sea levels.. enough to inundate Pacific Islands.. drown Manhattan.. redefine coastlines, in some cases by hundreds of miles, as sea level rose enough to inundate all areas at sea level.. NONE of it has happened.

Sea level is rising...the rate matters. Can you cite a published scientific finding that Manhatten would be drowned by now? I doubt it...

 

[Kakato]

The issue isn't about some small pool of water opening up at the North Pole, it' about the eventual and probably permanent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic in the summer months with serious consequences for the biotas(biological communities) and the regional climate. Having dark sea water absorbing most of the solar radiation in the summer months when before the ice cover reflected most of back into space is going to have a significant effect on accelerated warming in the region.

The Greenland Ice Sheet on the other hand, in paticular the northern portion is probably going to remain present for decades if not centuries and the processes causing its breakdown are different than with the sea ice which is melted from the bottom by a warming ocean.

And while you seem open to the existance of climate change you also refuse to accept the strong possibility that human activity is behind it even though we're the source of over 30 MILLION tons a day of the most important GHG in the atmosphere CO2. Far more than the natural sources of new carbon dioxide being produced, geological activity. With habitat changes like extensive deforestation, mono-culture agriculture and creating ocean dead zones we're also destroying some of the most important carbon sinks on the planet.

You also claimed I believe that massive blooms of ocean phytoplankton have replaced these reservoirs, but don't account for the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are at record heights and still climbing. Clearly we're having a major impact on some of the most important moderating systems in the global environment, denying that is a form climate change denial, you admit there's an issue but remove any responsibility from us even in the face of strong evidence of a causual link. And therefore object to policy changes that can mitigate the problem.

Research done at NASA indiates that when atmospheric levels of CO2 delcined to about 450ppm the glaciation of Antarctica began about 34 Mya, before that the Earth was free of ice at it's poles. We're now approaching that limit and may even be inside the margin of error already meaning the eventual breakdown of all ice cover on the planet. Greenland isn't going to be free of that event, the stable ice sheet in East Antarctica will probably be the last to go centuries from now if we continue to drive up levels of CO2, CH4, N2O and other postive forcings.

Maybe you're intentions are true, I don't know, I do know that there are entire threads here that are based on how ignorant people are about the science and how proud they are of that fact and their ignorance based denial. You seem resistant to that kind of behaviour, so hopefully this is my misunderstanding.

Well in my years 60 kliks from the arctic circle the ice allways melted end of june like clockwork,that tends to happen when you get 24 hours of daylight.It freezes back up late september,like clockwork and up to ten feet thick.That also tends to happen when you have 24 hours of darkness.

I dont know why this is never mentioned,surely it must have some impact on melting ice.

Also spring in the arctic happens very very quickly as meltwater cant be absorbed into the ground because of the permafrost so it very quickly erodes lake and sea ice at the shore which allows it to break free and get blown back and forth by the winds.
The permafrost is also a very important part of ice melting and it is also rarely mentioned amongst all the graphs and hyperbole.
It is a very delicate environment for sure but when you got 24 hours of darkness and -50 celsius ambient temps your going to be building close to an inch of ice per day.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Well in my years 60 kliks from the arctic circle the ice allways melted end of june like clockwork,that tends to happen when you get 24 hours of daylight.It freezes back up late september,like clockwork and up to ten feet thick.That also tends to happen when you have 24 hours of darkness.

I dont know why this is never mentioned,surely it must have some impact on melting ice.

Also spring in the arctic happens very very quickly as meltwater cant be absorbed into the ground because of the permafrost so it very quickly erodes lake and sea ice at the shore which allows it to break free and get blown back and forth by the winds.
The permafrost is also a very important part of ice melting and it is also rarely mentioned amongst all the graphs and hyperbole.
It is a very delicate environment for sure but when you got 24 hours of darkness and -50 celsius ambient temps your going to be building close to an inch of ice per day.

You always get the summer melting, in some years more than others. The main thing to keep your eyes on is the much thicker and stable multi-year ice pack which provides a base for the yearly sea ice to form on.

In recent decades the multi-year ice has declined in average thickness and overall extent to the point where it will at some point in not to many years down the road all be gone by the height of summer warming. After which you no longer have the stable base to build the yearly sea ice on and you have a totally different ecology and climate.

There's several decades of warming coming based on the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere most likely so debating whether the Arctic ice pack is going to be around in the future is probably pointless.

It's going to be a much different Arctic most likely before 2020. Ice conditions and weather is already much different now according to people who live on the Arctic ocean coast.

 

[taxslave]

This thread started in June of 2008. So far the North pole hasn't been ice free in the past four years. Any more dire warnings from Chicken Little?

 

[Kakato]

You always get the summer melting, in some years more than others. The main thing to keep your eyes on is the much thicker and stable multi-year ice pack which provides a base for the yearly sea ice to form on.

In recent decades the multi-year ice has declined in average thickness and overall extent to the point where it will at some point in not to many years down the road all be gone by the height of summer warming. After which you no longer have the stable base to build the yearly sea ice on and you have a totally different ecology and climate.

There's several decades of warming coming based on the extra CO2 we've added to the atmosphere most likely so debating whether the Arctic ice pack is going to be around in the future is probably pointless.

It's going to be a much different Arctic most likely before 2020. Ice conditions and weather is already much different now according to people who live on the Arctic ocean coast.

Well I was building ice roads in the far north and doing profiles for many years and I can tell you without a doubt,when it's 24 hour darkness it will be cold and ice will form.
This is a very important part of this fearmongering campaign.
The arctic will freeze every winter,thats a given.
No amount of climate change will ever change that fact.
And it's not more in some years or others,remember I mentioned permafrost,very important part of anything in the arctic,if your a southern boy then you should just stop right now and learn a bit about how different it is then down here in the south.

You can live your life for 30 years in the bush here in the south and put you in the arctic and you will have to relearn everything you thought you knew about snow and shyte in general.

I did and I had over 30 years experience.

 

[Tonington]

The arctic will freeze every winter,thats a given.
No amount of climate change will ever change that fact.

That's a foolish thing to say. The climate on our planet was once stable with no ice at the poles.