Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[igrowone]

its bit curious.

the poles have melted alot yeah?

but you, looking down at the harbor and some beaches i remember quite intimately as a kid.

the waterlevel is not higher.

not really noticably.

that is true, relatively anyways
the northern icecap could melt completely, and the change in ocean level?
basically nothing, the northern ice cap is already displacing its water volume
there is some debate how small a change it would be
now the Greenland glaciers and the Antarctic ice sheets, those would do some shit
they're up on dry land

 

[purple_man]

perhaps due to "transpiration?", or how many "BIG STORMS" the world had worldwide, before all the experiments? who knows... seems like we "mortals n plebs" are not supposed to be in the know

ps.: yeah, that ish with the polar bears is CRAZY! read an article about it lately, and it aint lookin good for them homez!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The sea wall in Manhattan was built 5' above high tide. That level has risen 13" in the last century. So now it's a 4' wall. South Pacific islanders have had to move inland or to different islands altogether.

That doesn't sound like much and man isn't expected to deliver the final blow. But we could trigger natural events we can't possibly mitigate. Our permafrost is melting along with the North Pole and massive amounts of methane gas are suspended beneath the tundra. When this tundra melts, significant amounts of methane will be released. Methane is a far more dangerous as warming gas than CO2.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

its bit curious.

the poles have melted alot yeah?

but you, looking down at the harbor and some beaches i remember quite intimately as a kid.

the waterlevel is not higher.

not really noticably.

so either the polarcaps never contained that much ice, comparatively to the ocean.

or its freezing up somewhere else or the water going somewhere.

probably the first explanation.dunno

there were some thoughts of the melting ice stopping the great "elevator" of the seas, the stream that keeps it all going.

but that would cool where im at, down severly and its actually hotter than ever, seem to be going into a "hot period".

kinda cool how this opens up the world yeah.

well what happens is a lot of it gets caught up in the atmosphere and makes weather patterns more extreme, which I love because I like to ski and it brings crazy snow storms.

 

[igrowone]

well what happens is a lot of it gets caught up in the atmosphere and makes weather patterns more extreme, which I love because I like to ski and it brings crazy snow storms.

i can tell you in upstate NY last year's winter was completely crazy, snow fall was off the hook

 

[supermanlives]

my south pole is getting bigger gotta go LOL

 

[stihgnobevoli]

i hate to be the one (unless someone else already mentioned it) but i wonder how much of this we contribute to? im pretty sure those multiKilowatt grow shows are adding to the rate of pollution at a much faster rate than if we could use the sun.

 

[igrowone]

the time has come for the final update, the arctic minimum has been announced
by the NSIDC reckoning, this was the 2nd lowest arctic ice extent in the satellite record
but a very close #2, and some other researcher centers place it at #1
and so i leave this summary from NSIDC, which states the mainstream scientific view

The last five years (2007 to 2011) have been the five lowest extents in the continuous satellite record, which extends back to 1979. While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favored ice loss (including clearer skies, favorable wind patterns, and warm temperatures), this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic. This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin. Models and remote sensing data also indicate this is the case. A large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea, visible in NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imagery, suggests that the ice cover this year is particularly thin and dispersed this year.

 

[Iron_Lion]

Record drought in texas and this....

TORONTO (AP) — Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in new research.

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say. Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes. The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life and changes the look of Canada's coastline.

Luke Copland is an associate professor in the geography department at the University of Ottawa who co-authored the research. He said the Serson Ice Shelf shrank from 79.15 square miles (205 square kilometers) to two remnant sections three years ago, and was further diminished this past summer.

Copland said the shelf went from a 16-square-mile (42-square-kilometer) floating glacier tongue to 9.65 square miles (25 square kilometers), and the second section from 13.51 square miles (35 square kilometers) to 2 square miles (7 square kilometers), off Ellesmere Island's northern coastline.

This past summer, Ward Hunt Ice Shelf's central area disintegrated into drifting ice masses, leaving two separate ice shelves measuring 87.65 and 28.75 square miles (227 and 74 square kilometers) respectively, reduced from 131.7 square miles (340 square kilometers) the previous year.

"It has dramatically broken apart in two separate areas and there's nothing in between now but water," said Copland.

Copland said those two losses are significant, especially since the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf has always been the biggest, the farthest north and the one scientists thought might have been the most stable.

"Recent (ice shelf) loss has been very rapid, and goes hand-in-hand with the rapid sea ice decline we have seen in this decade and the increasing warmth and extensive melt in the Arctic regions," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, remarking on the research.

Copland, who uses satellite imagery and who has conducted field work in the Arctic every May for the past five years, said since the end of July, pieces equaling one and a half times the size of Manhattan Island have broken off. Co-researcher Derek Mueller, an assistant professor at Carleton University's geography and environmental studies department, said the loss this past summer equals up to three billion tons. Copland said their findings have not yet been peer reviewed since the research is new, but a number of scientists contacted by The Associated Press reviewed the findings, agreeing the loss in volume of ice shelves is significant.

Scambos said the loss of the Arctic shelves is significant because they are old and their rapid loss underscores the severity of the warming trend scientists see now relative to past fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the warmer times in the pre-Current Era (B.C.).

Ice shelves, which began forming at least 4,500 years ago, are much thicker than sea ice, which is typically less than a few feet (meters) thick and survives up to several years.

Canada has the most extensive ice shelves in the Arctic along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. These floating ice masses are typically 131 feet (40 meters) thick (equivalent to a 10-story building), but can be as much as 328 feet (100 meters) thick. They thickened over time via snow and sea ice accumulation, along with glacier inflow in certain places.

The northern coast of Ellesmere Island contains the last remaining ice shelves in Canada, with an estimated area of 217 square miles (563 square kilometers), Mueller said.

Between 1906 and 1982, there has been a 90 percent reduction in the areal extent of ice shelves along the entire coastline, according to data published by W.F. Vincent at Quebec's Laval University. The former extensive "Ellesmere Island Ice Sheet" was reduced to six smaller, separate ice shelves: Serson, Petersen, Milne, Ayles, Ward Hunt and Markham. In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf whittled almost completely away, as did the Markham Ice Shelf in 2008 and the Serson this year.

"The impact is significant and yet only a piece of the ongoing and accelerating response to warming of the Arctic," said Dr. Robert Bindschadler, emeritus scientist at the Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Bindschadler said the loss is an indication of another threshold being passed, as well as the likely acceleration of buttressed glaciers able to flow faster into the ocean, which accelerates their contribution to global sea level.

Copland said mean winter temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade for the past five to six decades on northern Ellesmere Island.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects in paragraph 3 that Serson Ice Shelf shrank to two remant sections three years ago, not five years ago; and in paragraph 13 the size of the last remaining ice shelves in Canada. Minor style edits, For global distribution.)

 

[igrowone]

2012 and a new minimum

2012 and a new minimum

there are events that just kind of beg to be noted, even if it's not popular with all
a new record low ice extent at the arctic sea, pics say a lot, it's not your daddy's climate any more
2-3 weeks more melting for the season, it could get extreme

 

[Growcephus]

there are events that just kind of beg to be noted, even if it's not popular with all
a new record low ice extent at the arctic sea, pics say a lot, it's not your daddy's climate any more
2-3 weeks more melting for the season, it could get extreme

Climate change has happened how many times throughout the life of our planet as we know it?

Multiple times.

There is no doubt in my mind that our climate WILL change, however, there is no legitimate evidence (from what I've read) that indicates HUMANS are capable of accelerating or slowing down the process.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the current scheme of using "carbon credits" is nothing more than a way to "legitimize" the further theft of private citizen funds in order to line the pockets of corrupt government dirtbags, and to buy votes. All in the name of "saving the environment".

 

[HempKat]

Climate change has happened how many times throughout the life of our planet as we know it?

Multiple times.

There is no doubt in my mind that our climate WILL change, however, there is no legitimate evidence (from what I've read) that indicates HUMANS are capable of accelerating or slowing down the process.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the current scheme of using "carbon credits" is nothing more than a way to "legitimize" the further theft of private citizen funds in order to line the pockets of corrupt government dirtbags, and to buy votes. All in the name of "saving the environment".

Define legitimate evidence? Part of the problem is we haven't been around long enough to fully understand how these natural cycles that have caused climate change "many times", work. The best we can do is extrapolate a guess based on observations made on core samples. Now it's these same samples that establish that there has been climate change many times so it's fair to say it's legitimate evidence of climate change. Since we as a species have yet to see a full cycle the closest thing we can have as evidence are estimations and predictions. If the core samples contain solid evidence of this cycle then we can make a fairly solid guess on when changes should happen. Well they do and we have and things are happening approximately 20-30 years sooner then anticipated.

Given that we're dealing with something we've yet to fully experience and it's happening alot sooner then expected, that's about as close to legitimate evidence that man has accelerated things, as we are likely to ever get.

I agree that the whole carbon credit thing is riddiculous and a scam against people by the governments that are supposed to serve them. Be that as it may though, that does not mean we should just ignore all this global warming stuff and just hope it goes away. We as a people need to make some serious changes in how we look at and do things and not just because of global warming, that's just one of many problems we face if we just keep on going the way we've been going.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[ClosetAdvocate]

Why only focus on the Arctic pole, we have two poles?

Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years
*When adding the sea ice volumes at both poles there is about the same ice as 30 years ago link. Antarctica has 90% of the world's ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years according to NASA and NSIDC link link View today's Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center) link link While it is true Arctic sea ice volumes have been overall slightly less today than the average of the last 30 years the ice there has been growing the past several years and as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice since 2007. There is also substantially more multi year ice in the Arctic in 2009 than just one year earlier link Antarctic sea ice extent in September 2009 is also growing and is 1 million square kilometers more than the previous year. In 2009 the Antarctic had the most Summer ice ever recorded link. View today's Arctic sea ice extent, NSIDC link DMI link

View todays Antarctic sea ice extent Univ. Illinois Cyrosphere link

2010 Antarctic ice extent was the third largest ever recorded. Average snowfall in Antarctica was the most ever recorded link

See current ice conditions in the Northern Hemisphere link and the Southern Hemisphere link

From: http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

I think this topic is more complicated than many understand. Our meteorologists can't even predict weather patterns let alone our climatologists understand the cyclical rate of global cooling/heating patterns that have existed for easily thousands of years when they've only been tracking them for hundreds of years.

I'm putting my flame suit on for this one. Just pay attention to the political/economic agenda behind this whole "global climate change" push.

There's a lot to be gained politically/economically for what they are advocating. Smart meters, smart consumer electronics, chrony-capitalism favoritism for "green energy", "carbon credits", the demonization of the use of fossil fuels.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[supermanlives]

face it this whole planet is on a path of self destruction. so many issues, pollution ,overpopulation mainly.glad i will be long dead before things get ugly. luckilly i get my ice from freezer rather than an iceberg.

 

[dagnabit]

consider the earth as a wheel.
sea ice is the balancing weight to keep it spinning properly.
with the sea ice balance out of whack (see above) the wheel will go out of balance and cause shuddering (earthquakes) or worse.
ever play with a gyroscope? funky things happen when you disturb centrifugal force.

poles have been shifting. could this be due the balancing load shifting?

sorry, got away from me....

Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky, brush in some clouds and sea
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace, is the human face.
But afraid, we may lay our home to waste.

(~)

 

[HempKat]

Well the thing about accepting the possibility of man's contribution to global warming is that it goes alot farther then the usual debates where the side believing man is a factor is percieved as wanting to implement cap and trade. I do think man contributes but in ways beyond just greenhouse gases and even though the green house gas thing may be overhyped there are other very real consequences and dangers to the amount of pollution via exhaust from our machinery, that we put into the air.

Population is perhaps the biggest factor because we are increasing at such a rate that maybe we're out pacing the earth's ability to shrug off our impact? Consider that we've been polluting the air for a long time and up until the mid 20th century it looked like the earth was handling it. Now here we are just a little more then a half century later and we have twice as many people doing the same things essentially and suddenly we see climate change sooner then anticipated. The real problem is the way civilization advanced. Some groups of people knew how to live harmoniously with their environment, like the indians of N. and S. America. Doing so thier environments were self sustaining and they didn't need to develope the means to conquer other people to take their resources after having used up thier own resources. Other people however turned out the opposite and eventually wiped out or enslaved the peoples that were more in balance with their environment. In this manner mankind advanced to how we are today and we've lost touch with how to live in harmony with nature.

 

[igrowone]

Why only focus on the Arctic pole, we have two poles?

From: http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

I think this topic is more complicated than many understand. Our meteorologists can't even predict weather patterns let alone our climatologists understand the cyclical rate of global cooling/heating patterns that have existed for easily thousands of years when they've only been tracking them for hundreds of years.

I'm putting my flame suit on for this one. Just pay attention to the political/economic agenda behind this whole "global climate change" push.

There's a lot to be gained politically/economically for what they are advocating. Smart meters, smart consumer electronics, chrony-capitalism favoritism for "green energy", "carbon credits", the demonization of the use of fossil fuels.

overall, this is a valid point, but it's also disingenuous
phrase it another way, if your house's attic is on fire, but the basement is fine, no problem?
the Antarctic contains the bulk of the ice, it tends to skew that measure
but to the point about the Antarctic acting differently than the Arctic, that is true, they're very different beasts
and if the Antarctic begins to melt/flow like the Arctic, there will be no argument and it will be time to head to higher ground

 

[ClosetAdvocate]

overall, this is a valid point, but it's also disingenuous
phrase it another way, if your house's attic is on fire, but the basement is fine, no problem?
the Antarctic contains the bulk of the ice, it tends to skew that measure
but to the point about the Antarctic acting differently than the Arctic, that is true, they're very different beasts
and if the Antarctic begins to melt/flow like the Arctic, there will be no argument and it will be time to head to higher ground

I understand your analogy, but it's a bad one.

Nobody wants their attic on fire whereas ice always melts. Ice has been melting in artic for thousands of years.

This only becomes an issue if there is a net loss of ice. The seas aren't going to be rising if there is no net loss of ice. Besides... I don't like NJ anyway.