Arctic ice melt dramatically higher in 2007

[livendive 8]

I don't know if it's part of a shift in trends or simply an outlier, but I thought this was an interesting article.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

DUDE... Ask RUSHMC and Lush Rimjob...... nothing is happening.. its not humans fault....move along.. there is nothing to see here.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

DUDE... Ask RUSHMC and Lush Rimjob...... nothing is happening.. its not humans fault....move along.. there is nothing to see here.

A statement from you that makes sense. Keep up the good work DUDE!

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 3,120]

On the positive side, melting arctic ice won't affect the sea level. Floating ice displaces as much water as the water does when it melts. (And it makes more shipping routes available.)

On the minus side, that's a lot more ocean water exposed to the sun, which means more warming at the poles.

[Amazon 7]

Except that the Greenland Glaciers are melting at the same rates.... and THAT is going to affect sea level... and the fresh water can alter the flow of the salt water in the deep Atlantic.

From the article..

Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted -- something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades -- it could add more than 22 feet to the world's sea level.

[billvon 3,120]

> Except that the Greenland Glaciers are melting at the same rates....

They are, and that is a problem. However, warmer arctic seas mean more precipitation, which means more snow deposited on Greenland. Right now the net result is ice loss, but more slowly than you'd expect from just looking at the melt numbers. Which means that we're looking at an inch or two of sea level rise a decade instead of a foot, barring further destabilization.

[shropshire 0]

The ice caps on our planet have formed and thawd many, many times over... so, did the ealry beasties that inhabited the Earth drive big 4x4s too?

Have we helped to accelerate the process this time around? I dont know, but currently feel that it doesn't matter too much in the great scheme of things, because what ever is going to happen to the planet has happened before and will happen again.

Life on Earth has been all but wipped out before and it's going to happen again - get over it. The planet will survive.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Marc.... you and I are going to have to stop agree on shit

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[speedy 0]

compared to when?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

>http://www.foxnews.com/...,2933,316566,00.html

What do you think of the results of the study? (in your own words)

[shropshire 0]

Hi Bill,

Are you aware of what any of models predict if none of the post industrial revolution, man made CO2 had been released into the atmosphere?
Not wishing to put words into anyone mouth, but would the cycle of heating and cooling continued. Did we, perhaps hust accelerate and existing phase?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>but currently feel that it doesn't matter too much in the great scheme
>of things, because what ever is going to happen to the planet has
>happened before and will happen again.

Quite true. The question we have to ask is - do we want to accelerate that change?

>Life on Earth has been all but wipped out before and it's going to happen
>again - get over it. The planet will survive.

Also quite true. However, it would perhaps be best if we did not force that to happen as quickly as possible. A meteor might indeed wipe out all life on the planet in 1000 years - but it would be nice if we were around until then.

[livendive 8]

Quote

compared to when?

I don't know. What did the article say?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

A meteor might indeed wipe out all life on the planet in 1000 years

...or in September 2009.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,120]

>Are you aware of what any of models predict if none of the post
>industrial revolution, man made CO2 had been released into the
>atmosphere?

Are you talking JUST CO2? If so, then the positive forcing of methane, halocarbons, ozone and NOx we released would barely overcome the negative forcings from high altitude aerosols, and the climate would do what it usually does. CO2 is far from the only greenhouse gas, but it's the most significant one we emit in terms of forcing.

To predict what _that_ would be, take the graph below, take a pencil and start drawing lines through it at any time before about 1800.

Or are you talking no anthropogenic releases at all? If so, then a study by Ammann, Caspar et al. in 2007 had this to say:

"Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of 0.2 °C, which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism."

(I assume you're only referring to anthropogenic CO2. Without any greenhouse gases the earth would be on average 60F cooler, and uninhabitable.)

[shropshire 0]

No, we shouldn't want to accelerate the cycle, but I guess the question is by how much (is it even measurable?) are we (if in fact we are) accelerating an already established process.

Metors aren't the only causes of [near] Extinction Level Events. It is belived that one of the early events was caused by SO2 (discussed by the BBC program Earth: The Power of the Planet episode 4).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

[CAVIAT] - Bare in mind that I'm no scientist...... but

2000 years is a blink of an eye in respect of the heating/cooling cycles of the planet so I'd like a lot more data points moving left from the start of the chart that you presented.



Actually, I'd like to know a lot more about how one measures the average temperature of the Earth.... Does one do it at the same time of day at the same locations? Lets face it (to my simple mind) it's an almost impossible calculation to make today, with current technology, let alone guess what it was 2000 years ago... what am I missing?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>so I'd like a lot more data points moving left from the start of the chart
>that you presented.

OK, here's half a million years. Note that the farther we go back, the more uncertainty there is in the measurement, since proxies become fewer.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>http://www.foxnews.com/...,2933,316566,00.html

What do you think of the results of the study? (in your own words)

What do you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>but currently feel that it doesn't matter too much in the great scheme
>of things, because what ever is going to happen to the planet has
>happened before and will happen again.

Quite true. The question we have to ask is - do we want to accelerate that change?IF we could have that effect I would worry about it

>Life on Earth has been all but wipped out before and it's going to happen
>again - get over it. The planet will survive.

Also quite true. However, it would perhaps be best if we did not force that to happen as quickly as possible. A meteor might indeed wipe out all life on the planet in 1000 years - but it would be nice if we were around until then.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>so I'd like a lot more data points moving left from the start of the chart
>that you presented.

OK, here's half a million years. Note that the farther we go back, the more uncertainty there is in the measurement, since proxies become fewer.

.....and if that graph was properly formated it would show CO2 lagging temps now wouldnt it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>What do you think?

I asked you first! (and you posted it first.)

>and if that graph was properly formated it would show CO2 lagging
>temps now wouldnt it.

Sorry! It has the actual data in it. Feel free to distort it and re-post it if you like.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

>What do you think?

I asked you first! (and you posted it first.)

>and if that graph was properly formated it would show CO2 lagging
>temps now wouldnt it.

Sorry! It has the actual data in it. Feel free to distort it and re-post it if you like.

You know he can't answer until he has my opinion. He told us as much on 24th November.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>What do you think?

I asked you first! (and you posted it first.)

>and if that graph was properly formated it would show CO2 lagging
>temps now wouldnt it.

Sorry! It has the actual data in it. Feel free to distort it and re-post it if you like.

You know he can't answer until he has my opinion. He told us as much on 24th November.

What DO you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln