Ice

[lawrocket 3]

Quotes from the article:

Headline: "Think this summer is hot? Get used to it"

"This summer's stifling, deadly heat along the Eastern Seaboard and Deep South could be a preview of summers to come over the next few decades, according to a report about global warming to be published Wednesday by the National Wildlife Federation and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America."

"The report, a supplement to a 2009 report on heat waves, notes that more extremely hot summer days are projected for every part of the country by the year 2050: "Summers like the current one, or even worse, will become the norm by 2050 if global warming pollution continues to increase unabated.""

"However, Fenimore notes that the frequency at which these extreme weather events are occurring — such as extreme heat or cold — are on the increase.

"Most locations have had about twice as many days with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees than they typically would by the end of July," the NWF report states about this summer's heat. "For example, Washington, D.C., had 39 days with temperatures in the 90s by July 31, compared to 18 days for an average year.""

So they say we can't blame global warming. But - they talk about global warming and point to this weather as a big point. Does not your quote take the wind out of the sails of the article's point?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

How many ft above sea level do you live again???

[lawrocket 3]

I'm at about 300' elevation.

Are you referring to the possibility that the sea level will rise 23 feet if the Greenland ice sheet melted? Hmm. seeing as how the last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago (30k years ago, you'd be under a mile of ice up there in the northwest, Jeanne) and the earth has only about 40% of the ice that it had 18k years ago, one would figure that with any realistic anthropogenic climate change that a good 8k-10k years (at an absolute minimum) would be required to melt that ice. Since we'll run out of carbon-based fuels in the next couple of hundred years, I don't view this as a threat.

I don't even think republicans could melt all that ice in the next hundred years or so.

Or maybe you are referring to the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. Add tens of thousands more years.

Somehow, I think that democrats are smart enough to lead the world's population through these changes and enable them to relocate to safer inland areas. Societal good has been shown and demonstrated by governmental policy causing vast numbers of people to populate Siberia in the first half of the 20th century.

Seeing as how populations will have thousands of years to adjust and plan for the coming onslaught of ocean water I am not concerned. To think - Auberry could become ocean front property. BUY NOW!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I'm at about 300' elevation.

Are you referring to the possibility that the sea level will rise 23 feet if the Greenland ice sheet melted? Hmm. seeing as how the last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago (30k years ago, you'd be under a mile of ice up there in the northwest, Jeanne) and the earth has only about 40% of the ice that it had 18k years ago, one would figure that with any realistic anthropogenic climate change that a good 8k-10k years (at an absolute minimum) would be required to melt that ice. Since we'll run out of carbon-based fuels in the next couple of hundred years, I don't view this as a threat.

I don't even think republicans could melt all that ice in the next hundred years or so.

Or maybe you are referring to the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. Add tens of thousands more years.

Somehow, I think that democrats are smart enough to lead the world's population through these changes and enable them to relocate to safer inland areas. Societal good has been shown and demonstrated by governmental policy causing vast numbers of people to populate Siberia in the first half of the 20th century.

Seeing as how populations will have thousands of years to adjust and plan for the coming onslaught of ocean water I am not concerned. To think - Auberry could become ocean front property. BUY NOW!

What ever would they do if they couldn't come up with something to strike fear into the general public?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quotes from the article:

Headline: "Think this summer is hot? Get used to it"

"This summer's stifling, deadly heat along the Eastern Seaboard and Deep South could be a preview of summers to come over the next few decades, according to a report about global warming to be published Wednesday by the National Wildlife Federation and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America."

"The report, a supplement to a 2009 report on heat waves, notes that more extremely hot summer days are projected for every part of the country by the year 2050: "Summers like the current one, or even worse, will become the norm by 2050 if global warming pollution continues to increase unabated.""

"However, Fenimore notes that the frequency at which these extreme weather events are occurring — such as extreme heat or cold — are on the increase.

"Most locations have had about twice as many days with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees than they typically would by the end of July," the NWF report states about this summer's heat. "For example, Washington, D.C., had 39 days with temperatures in the 90s by July 31, compared to 18 days for an average year.""

So they say we can't blame global warming. But - they talk about global warming and point to this weather as a big point. Does not your quote take the wind out of the sails of the article's point?

No.

Weather isn't climate. You know that, I know that, mnealtx knows it, and the author of the article you cited clearly knows it.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

You know, I'm wondering what glacier it was that calved in 1962 - a bigger event than this one. The 1961-62 event was of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf - actually north of the Petermann event.

What's funny is that if you read up about the Ward Hunt ice shelf they describe recent events of cracking and release of icebergs, etc.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&ID=11895 - "Ward Hunt Ice Shelf has existed for over 3000 years. However, by the summer of 2002 dramatic changes were beginning to take shape." - no mention of the 1961-1962 event.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3132074.stm - from 2003 describing the ablation of the Ward Hunt ice Shelf. "The scientists say the fracturing - which has been developing since the spring of 2000 - is the end result of a three-decade-long decline." (Um - it lost 100 square miles in 1961-62, assholes).

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/earth/f_iceshelf.html - NASA story from Feb, 2004. "The decline of the 3,000-year-old ice shelf may have a lasting impact on humans and wildlife." - no mention of the 1962 event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Hunt_Ice_Shelf - Wikipedia doesn't mention the 1962 calving.

Here's a paper that talked about it from 1986. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic39-1-15.pdf - "During the present century the ‘‘Ellesmere
Ice Shelf” has disintegrated, creating many ice islands that
circulate in the Arctic Ocean, leaving only smaller, individual ice shelves. The largest observed ice island calving occurred at Ward HuntI ce Shelf (Fig. l), where almost6 00 km2 of ice broke away at some time between August 1961 and April 1962."

600 square kilometers? Almost 100 square miles.

No, how come this prior history isn't being mentioned? You'd think that when a credible scientist is discussing the breakup of an ice shelf, that scientist would not talk about a 30 year history of decline when merely going back, oh, about ten years would demonstrate that in one fell swoop is lost 60% of its size. Could it be that such information would not be consistent with the message that they intend to deliver?

Note: sea ice and glacier calving are separate things that are formed differently. Sea ice forms over water. These glaciers form over land and move out to sea attached to the glacier. Again, "calving" and "melting" are two separate things. Melting glaciers don't calve. They melt. This Petermann glacier didn't melt. It calved.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. Correct. They all know it. Which is why they put a disclaimer on it.

It doesn't mean that they don't take hot weather events and link them to global warming. It's why the original BBC article you posted made sure to point out that "The first six months of 2010 have been the hottest on record globally, scientists have said."

When there's rain a pourin
Blame global warming
If you're in doubt about what caused the drought
Just blame global warming
Out the window it's 40 below
It's climate change don't you know
And when your feet go retreat to beat the heat
Global warming caused it.
When a hurricane churns or a typhoon lurks
When the waves start crashing or some floodwater murks
Join the bandwagon and don't be a jerk
Blame it on global warming.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Yep. Correct. They all know it. Which is why they put a disclaimer on it.

It doesn't mean that they don't take hot weather events and link them to global warming.

And deniers take local cooling events to deny any change, and DON'T put any disclaimers in.

I seem to recall a rushmc thread about how warming stopped in 1998. No mention of the fact that 1998 was an el Nino year. No disclaimer. Just denial.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And deniers take local cooling events to deny any change, and DON'T put any disclaimers in.

True. However, the deniers are generally considered to be ignorant, etc. To hear the alarmist crowd, you'd figure that the deniers just don't know better.

But the alarmists use weather, too. The pre-eminent ones do, which is why there are so frequently discussions about ice minimums, etc. Why when snowmageddon on the east was happening this past winter, there were people saying, "Global warming my ass" who were responded to by saying, "This is exactly what global warming suggests will happen." Evidence against, evidence for. No. Weather.

Of course, John, you titled the thread "ice." And brought up an article from the BBC that mentioned weather. Meanwhile, this isn't something that is evidence of any climatological change. It's a big-ass chunk of ice breaking off where big ass chunks of ice have broken off and where big ass chunks will break off.

Quote

seem to recall a rushmc thread about how warming stopped in 1998. No mention of the fact that 1998 was an el Nino year. No disclaimer. Just denial.

Of course, that 2006 thread proved to be pretty precient. consider the lengthy discussions in 2009 about the paper by Swanson and Tsonis in 2009. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

Now, this paper discusses inter-decadal variability and it's role in the 20th century climate trajectory and it's role in near-future climate change - and specifically how known variables like the ENSO and volcanoes express themselves. Then th paper discusses the distinct pause that had occurred since 1998 or later. (The pause is quite noticeable in HADCRUT3 data. GISSTEMP data doesn't show it as markedly).

The paper suggests that something extraodinary happened after 1998 and there was a pause in warming that was unexplained by ENSO or volcanoes. The authors suggest that the temperature anomaly had followed a clear line fo radiative forcing until 1997-98 but shot way the hell up and is recovering. They predict a return to normal forcing levels in around 2020.

Weather phenomenon are important in many ways because they provide evidence and ideas about forcings. When something happens that is unexplained, well, they gotta take a look.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Societal good has been shown and demonstrated by governmental policy causing vast numbers of people to populate Siberia in the first half of the 20th century.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,132]

> Societal good has been shown and demonstrated by governmental policy
>causing vast numbers of people to populate Siberia in the first half of the
>20th century.

And the economic stimulus due to increased air conditioner and iced tea sales.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

And deniers take local cooling events to deny any change, and DON'T put any disclaimers in.

True. However, the deniers are generally considered to be ignorant, etc. To hear the alarmist crowd, you'd figure that the deniers just don't know better.

.

Seems to me that not knowing about an el Nino event is pretty ignorant.

And the Arctic ocean IS a pretty big place, not just like one city or coast in the USA. Lots of weather is averaged there. The spatial and temporal average of weather IS climate. The moving average of ice cover over the entire ocean is decreasing 6% per decade.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And the Arctic ocean IS a pretty big place, not just like one city or coast in the USA

Comparing the Arctic to a city in North America is like comparing North America to a city in North America.

Quote

The moving average of ice cover over the entire ocean is decreasing 6% per decade.

Since when?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

And the Arctic ocean IS a pretty big place, not just like one city or coast in the USA

Comparing the Arctic to a city in North America is like comparing North America to a city in North America.

My point exactly. Chicago's 2010 hot spell of record length is as irrelevant to the climate as its record snowfall in 1978. OTOH if an entire continent or ocean is showing a sustained change, that has relevance.

Quote

Quote

The moving average of ice cover over the entire ocean is decreasing 6% per decade.

Since when?

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure3.png

Do me a favor. Next time someone posts without a disclaimer about their local cold snap disproving AGM, please get all over their case (something you have conspicuously NOT done previously).

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My point exactly. Chicago's 2010 hot spell of record length is as irrelevant to the climate as its record snowfall in 1978. OTOH if an entire continent or ocean is showing a sustained change, that has relevance.

Only when it serves your point - I refer you back to your comment of "North America is not the Earth", upthread.

Quote

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure3.png

Ice thickness 2000

Ice thickness 2010

DMI has the Arctic temperature as below 0° C now, a couple weeks earlier than the average.

Quote

Do me a favor. Next time someone posts without a disclaimer about their local cold snap disproving AGM, please get all over their case (something you have conspicuously NOT done previously).

Do us a favor - start using a disclaimer on your own posts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

o me a favor. Next time someone posts without a disclaimer about their local cold snap disproving AGM, please get all over their case (something you have conspicuously NOT done previously).

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3659211#3659211

It's nice to be so appreciated for actually defending you on the issue of weather. I do, however, give somewhat more credence to weather than you do. This is mainly because climate scientists give a lot of creedence to weather, as well. Check out "2007 ice arctic" and find out what they say about weather.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

o me a favor. Next time someone posts without a disclaimer about their local cold snap disproving AGM, please get all over their case (something you have conspicuously NOT done previously).

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3659211#3659211

.

Funny, I didn't see any mention of a local cold snap in there.

...

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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

My point exactly. Chicago's 2010 hot spell of record length is as irrelevant to the climate as its record snowfall in 1978. OTOH if an entire continent or ocean is showing a sustained change, that has relevance.

Only when it serves your point - I refer you back to your comment of "North America is not the Earth", upthread.

Quote

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure3.png

Ice thickness 2007

Ice thickness 2010

DMI has the Arctic temperature as below 0° C now, a couple weeks earlier than the average.

Quote

Do me a favor. Next time someone posts without a disclaimer about their local cold snap disproving AGM, please get all over their case (something you have conspicuously NOT done previously).

Do us a favor - start using a disclaimer on your own posts.

Ice Thickness 2007 should read 2000, right?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[lawrocket 3]

Nor have I ever seen anybody comment "this localized cold snap disproves AGW."

If you wanna play nit picky dick-jitsu, I'm the best.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

That is correct - sorry for the mistake and thanks for pointing it out.

Bill/Paul - could you make the change in the link text, please?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

And the Arctic ocean IS a pretty big place, not just like one city or coast in the USA

Comparing the Arctic to a city in North America is like comparing North America to a city in North America.

Quote

The moving average of ice cover over the entire ocean is decreasing 6% per decade.

Since when?

Update.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

[Url]http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm

[lawrocket 3]

Updated

For the first time on record, Arctic ice peaked in April (and in a leap year, no less!).

The ice extent is above the 1979-2000 average right now. And a fairly obvious westerly wind. Despite the predictions that the Arctic would be summer ice free by 2012, it doesn't appear remotely to be the case.

Note: you may see news about March 18 being the ice extent maximum. The Arctic didn't listen to the scientists' proclamations and kept on growing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Updated

For the first time on record, Arctic ice peaked in April (and in a leap year, no less!).

The ice extent is above the 1979-2000 average right now. And a fairly obvious westerly wind. Despite the predictions that the Arctic would be summer ice free by 2012, it doesn't appear remotely to be the case.

Note: you may see news about March 18 being the ice extent maximum. The Arctic didn't listen to the scientists' proclamations and kept on growing.

So Chicago sent all its cold north this year.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So Chicago sent all its cold north this year.

Tsk tsk, professor. Heat flows, not cold.

My wife is hotter than your wife.