ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Hehe... Couple of questions for him please?
1) Are there more humans existing on this ball of dirt today (than EVer before)?
2) Have they been burning fossil remains ("gasoline"/"diseasal") than EVer before? (And are the exhaust fumes difficult for most carbon-based "animals" to breath?)
 
"10 Terrifying Before and After Photos That Will Silence Global Warming Deniers"
http://usuncut.com/climate/10-terri...r-photos-will-silence-global-warming-deniers/
To further document the progression of global warming, the U.S. Geological Survey is working on a project using a method called “Repeat Photography,” that is helping the public visually learn about how global warming has accelerated the melting of glaciers over the past 100 years.
Click to expand...

natgeo4.jpg

(1930s and 2005: Alaskan Pedersen Glacier)
 
"A curious cold spot in the Atlantic has scientists thinking their worst fears have come true":
http://inhabitat.com/a-curious-cold...ts-thinking-their-worst-fears-have-come-true/
NOAA-Land-and-Ocean-Temperature-Percentiles-2015-889x688.gif

Record cold temps in this condensed area of the ocean suggests that the circulation of water currents in the Atlantic is slowing. Warm and cold water should be mixing to normalize water temperatures, but the currents are functioning the way they need to. They rely on differences in temperature and salinity, which basically means that cold salty water in the North Atlantic sinks (it’s really dense) and warmer southern waters move northward to take its place. When a large influx of cold, fresh water is introduced to the picture, the system goes haywire and the water circulation patterns are weakened because the sinking doesn’t occur. And where is the fresh water coming from? The melting glaciers, of course. If the trend continues, it could mean rising sea levels along the East Coast and a change in temperature for Europe and North America.
Click to expand...
 
And the "inconvenient truths" just keep on coming... "World enters 'new era of climate reality' as CO2 hits important threshold":
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/24/worl...-reality-as-co2-hits-important-threshold.html

The WMO published its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin on Monday. In a news release accompanying the bulletin, the body stated that while CO2 levels had "previously reached the 400ppm barrier for certain months of the year and in certain locations" this had never happened "on a global average basis for the entire year."
Click to expand...
 
[youtube]Jy9ZIsFqo2c[/youtube]
 
I came across this one on facebook comments about facebook.
I can't believe some of the stuff that just sits out there by NASA.. its words guys like Trump would dream of..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Click to expand...
 
TheBeastie said:
I came across this one on facebook comments about facebook.
I can't believe some of the stuff that just sits out there by NASA.. its words guys like Trump would dream of..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good find and an interesting article. It doesn't really do anything to refute the reality of climate change, though. As long as the interior of Antarctica remains below freezing year round, it has the potential to keep gaining ice. But they do seem to also show that the rate of gain in interior parts are slowing, while the rate of loss on the perimeter is increasing. Meanwhile Greenland is losing an estimated 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year.

Also from the article:
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
 
"The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.93d1746d6fb8

... "Extraordinary situation"... "insane"... "freakishly warm"... "extreme behavior"... "pretty extreme"... "amazing to see"... "something odd is going on"... "It’s pretty crazy"... "sort of a “double whammy”"... "record low"...

But the record-low sea ice extent and unprecedented warmth in the region fit in well with recent trends and portend even more profound changes in the coming years.
Click to expand...
 
There are now companies going into commercial production that make animal feed from fossil fuel. Specifically, methane fed to bacteria that converts it to the energy it needs to grow plus CO2 and water. The bacteria is dried and pelletised. The idea of using fossil fuel instead of sunlight to grow food seems a backward step, unless problematic methane sources such as cattle waste, permafrost or hydrates could somehow be utilised. Such methane converted to CO2 and released to atmosphere would be preferential to the methane being released.
 
"‘Things are getting weird in the polar regions’":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hings-are-getting-weird-in-the-polar-regions/

...in an email in late October that a pattern of lower Antarctic sea ice is “what you’d expect in an El Nino, as well as transition to positive IPO, so trend for next 5-10 years should be negative, with year-to-year variations.” That comment came at a time when the Antarctic ice was low, but not yet at record low levels, as it is now.
Click to expand...
 
"Brown water, beaver battle among early signs of water woes":
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brown-wa...y-signs-water-165039793.html?.tsrc=daily_mail

From Atlanta, but mentions water shortages in Griffin, Georgia, Tennessee ("where about 300 of the state's 480 water systems serve areas suffering moderate to exceptional drought"), a mass mussel die-off due to low water in southwestern Virginia, Alabama's Lake Purdy getting drier... Beech Mountain, North Carolina "no snow this year and the drought has drained the town's sole water source, Buckeye Lake"... the west Georgia town of Villa Rica ("might soon have to pay a surcharge to cover the cost of purchased water")

:cry:
 
"Surging methane emissions imperil climate goals":
https://www.yahoo.com/news/surging-...climate-goals-001754018.html?.tsrc=daily_mail

After rising slowly from 2000 to 2006, the concentration of methane in the air climbed 10 times more quickly the following decade, according to that study, which was published in the peer-reviewed Earth System Science Data.

The unexpected -- and largely unexplained -- increase was especially sharp in 2014 and 2015.

"Keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is already a challenging target," they said, referring to the goal set in the 196-nation Paris climate pact, which entered into force last month.
Click to expand...
 
"The Arctic just had its warmest year on record ‘by far,’ scientists report":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ature-records-in-2016/?utm_term=.31758bbe6806

Part:
The Arctic saw the warmest temperatures ever recorded in 2016, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Air temperatures were 2 degrees Celsius — 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — higher than their 1981-to-2010 average in the months between October 2015 and September of 2016, a time period that coincided with a strong El Nino event, NOAA reported. According to the agency, since 1900, temperatures have risen even than that in the Arctic: 3.5 degrees C (6.3 degrees F). All of this means temperatures in the region continue to climb at double the rate of the planet as a whole.

“The average surface temperature in the Arctic from January until September of 2016 was by far the highest we’ve observed since 1900,” said Jeremy Mathis, who directs NOAA’s Arctic Research Program. “And this is a critical point, there were record temperature highs set in January, February, October, and November of 2016.”
Click to expand...
 
Dang, I wonder where all the water from the melted ice goes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greater-new-york-city-region-must-plan-for-permanent-flooding/
 
Dauntless said:
Dang, I wonder where all the water from the melted ice goes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greater-new-york-city-region-must-plan-for-permanent-flooding/
Click to expand...
The report breaks sea-level rise into "what-if" scenarios for 1-, 3- and 6-foot sea-level rise increments in the tri-state region. It finds that many of the major resilience policies, plans and projects under development fall short of addressing the long-term, existential threat of permanent flooding from sea-level rise.
Click to expand...
Planning for adaptation to the various effects of climate change is fruitless, albeit understandable for municipalities. Those scenarios don't include a 70-foot rise, for instance. Other reports recently completed regarding methane in the atmosphere, confirm the more radical view of rapid catastrophic climate change that melts both poles and Greenland. 70 feet by 2050-2100 is not outlandish (ha, ha, pun). We can kiss both New York and Boston off as viable place for humanity. I'll be dead by then, gratefully, so not my problem to deal with, and I choose to be child-free, so no progeny to worry about. As climate reality kicks in, I wonder how many people are going to move to Worcester to escape those places? We're 480 feet above sea level, so safe from sea level rise. Maybe I should re-invest into real estate here before the boom?
[youtube]G0rp6-BEur8[/youtube]
Read the entire 2016 Arctic Report Card here.
 
Hey arkmundi, I'm wondering if you ever (out of curiousity, sheer boredom, etc) attempt to understand the mainstream AGW 'deniers' viewpoints?

I mean, what even is a 'denier'? Someone who disagrees I guess? With what?

Is there some that can't agree that the earth is constantly changing, and has gone thru cataclysmic and almost unfathomable unverifiable change from it's initial existence till present? Full history being mystery. Science too- isn't that why we can't prove whether or not there's a God? (eternal and infinite perfection/creator)
And who can't agree that resource overuse/misuse, natural disasters, and associated polution have ramped up recent history?

But, the ultimate culprit and best avenues for correction of these things seem arguable and often highly polarized. As is the scientific projection/speculation on sources and prescribed outcomes of 'change' within any set periods of time. Some areas of 'higher' science (and gov) even appear quite subjective. Why would that be?

xc.jpg
 
...and here you come to muddy the waters with your ignorance and paranoid, contrarian rhetoric...

A scientific projection is not synonymous with "speculation". Nor is science "subjective". Your attempt to bring "God" into things doesn't even make sense when parsing the sentence.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is not understood by others. A normal theory of mind allows us to understand how others think. For example, you don't know where my shoes are right now (and I couldn't expect you to), but you should also know that I likely know where they are even though you don't. This is what separates from animals and is something autistic people can struggle with (if they know the book is on the shelf they expect everyone else to know it's there too).
 
nutspecial said:
Hey arkmundi, I'm wondering if you ever (out of curiousity, sheer boredom, etc) attempt to understand the mainstream AGW 'deniers' viewpoints?

I mean, what even is a 'denier'? Someone who disagrees I guess? With what?....
Click to expand...
Fair enough question ... so, yes, as it turns out. You see most of family, cousins, etc, as it turns out are Trump voters, as in "its a Chinese hoax." A very long personal exchange with some of them and in particular, my near equivalent age cousin who lives in Michigan. Yea, that MI, one of the 3 states with a close vote and which decided the race. Since it was family and all, I tried harder and attempted to really persuade him, in particular, though it could have been any mid-westerner GOP'er ain't no such thing as climate change good ol' guy. So here's one of my more recent retorts.
me said:
http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332
article said:
While a number of past studies have measured the level of scientific consensus on climate change, no one has published a summary of the many consensus estimates—until now. In a paper published in Environmental Research Letters on April 13, I collaborated with the authors of seven of the leading consensus studies to perform a meta-study of meta-studies synthesising the research into scientific consensus on climate change. (A meta-study combines the findings from multiple studies.) Among climate scientists, the estimates of consensus varied from 90 to 100 percent, with a number of studies converging on 97 percent, the very figure derided by Cruz, Santorum, and others opposed to action on global warming.

A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science. This meant that groups with lower climate expertise showed lower agreement on climate change.
Click to expand...
Having been trained as a scientist (B.S. UofH, Biophysical Sciences and M.P.H. UofT, Biostatistics), I have little difficulty in reading, understanding and finding shared consensus with climate science. I encourage your reconsideration.
Click to expand...
I believe it may be necessary for every one who understands climate reality to more arduously engage with those who deny that reality, as best understood, analysed and projected by the climate science community. Belief in a thing does not make that thing true. A thing is true in our modern world view, if it holds up to the scrutiny of science, the process which we mere mortals use to discern fact from fiction. Such is the rational method. :mrgreen:
 
While the questions / train of thought wasn't even directed at you, I'm happy to hear your reply. Now, just because you perceive that I'm attacking something you believe in doesn't mean you should attack me lol. . . .
...and here you come to muddy the waters with your ignorance and paranoid, contrarian rhetoric...
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should consult a dictionary and then attempt a more accurate understanding that will produce more accurate (objective) sentences?
A scientific projection is not synonymous with "speculation". Nor is science "subjective".
Click to expand...
Seriously, look up the definitions, read them entirely, and see if you can't understand how the polar opposite statement can not only also be 'true', but be far more accurate. More objective.

And then maybe try this again too.
Your attempt to bring "God" into things doesn't even make sense when parsing the sentence.
Click to expand...
Science must be subjective, unless it is perfect. It is unable to conclude definition of our reality (us/world/universe) without huge leaps of faith followed by 'best guesses' which directly contradict or at least compete lol. There is much room for improvement- quite obviously I would hope for someone educated objectively. I escalated my example to the broadest/deepest sense I could fathom, which I hoped would be the easiest to understand. I'm not even trying to get into 'mindfuck' territory that may be useful but is h i g h l y subjective and speculative for the purposes of this convo/subject.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it is not understood by others.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a definition of subjectivity. . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
"information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject"

But who's who and what's what? A wise person would be careful there.
I can claim I attempted care and thoughtfulness. My questions were made w/ the goal I might gather from a broader base to hopefully improve objectivity within my perspective, however flawed it currently is.

I may think I know where you are going with the shoe/animal/autism examples/analogies, but I know at least you think you know. Actually I can't be sure of that either, but I can be hopeful, lol.
. . . . .
Thanks for your reply above arkmundi, I'll read and reply a bit later!
 
Oh, well thanks that is an easy read and now reply!

I couldn't agree more. My only sticking point is the definition of 'climate change' as used in the article and your post. To me (as I feel it should be to everyone), it should be very obvious climates change.

It should be obvious also that man's presence affects change. In fact I'd think that is inescapable.
The argument is obviously about what degree man can affect things, and the question is how it can made to be good change instead of bad.

For the question's answer I think first 'good' and 'bad' need clear definition.

The way to win a war is to not have one. Imo it is to change ones' self to avoid/skirt/diminish the polarization that results in conflict (and likely flawed/subjective thought/action on both sides).

Full undebatable concensus on transparent concrete study for problem assessment and correction is necessary. This gains importance directly proportionate the scale. The earth and humanity is big scale stuff.

I'm cautious of 'mainstream' (this includes structural aspects and products of education/science) when I see a structure large subjective to the most powerful on this earth. I find that undeniable. ('follow the money', as they say).
There is evidence that the most corrupt are the most likely to gain the most control, because they have little qualms of 'winning' the position at any cost. Powerful corrupt are even most likely to create a structure such as this to begin with. . . .

Yeah, I think utopia and peace on earth is the 'good'. Absense of anger hate greed fear death decay etc. I think it could be within humanities grasp - it might even require humanity as a whole. No I don't think the top of the power structure contains people that feel this way, and we should be cautious not to be led to betray ourselves or our potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top