The North Pole:- we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so

[Erroll 80]

From CNN :-

Quote

The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Quote

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

From CNN :-

Quote

The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Quote

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

http://www.hoystory.com/?p=5029&referer=sphere_related_content

An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.

Volcanic eruptions under the Arctic couldn't possibly melt the ice now could it?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

Quote

From CNN :-

Quote

The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Quote

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

My bet is that it has happened before, and it will happen again after it (the ice) returns this time. When? depends on the lenght of the natural cycle involved.

Of course all of this depends on wether this story is really true or just more hype.

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

[piper17 1]

Let me see if I understand all this. Since the ice at the North Pole is melting, it is man that is causing this to happen.

When the earth was formed, was the ice at the north and south poles created at that time? Has the ice been there since the earth's creation and this is the first time in all those millions of years that it is melting?

Many people seem to think that the current state of the earth is how it has always been but it hasn't always been like this. There have been a number of "ice ages" that we are aware of that have occurred over time. In order to have multiple "ice ages" there also had to be a like number of "warm ages"....or we would just have one permanent "ice age".

Get over it. The earth warms, the earth cools, and it has been doing this constantly long before man walked the earth and it will be going on long after we are gone. The reason is the yellow ball you see in the sky most days!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Volcanic eruptions under the Arctic couldn't possibly melt the ice now could it?

So, your link would have us believe that oceanic tectonic activity is new (I'm trying to think of an ocean basin which lacks it) and that this particular (nine year old) eruption is responsible for the thinning ice? That's reaching just a bit don't cha think?
Actually, the oceanic crust in that region is unusually thin and the overall hydrothermal venting in the surrounding area is (and has been) very active. That's one reason that the Gakkel ridge spreads at a much much slower pace than most oceanic ridges.

As as side note, the hydrothermal vents there apparently have a good chance of harboring some interesting forms of life, possibly even new species. They believe the basin was formed about 65 million years ago and it apparently doesn't share any deep water connections with neighboring oceans.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Volcanic eruptions under the Arctic couldn't possibly melt the ice now could it?

So, your link would have us believe that oceanic tectonic activity is new (I'm trying to think of an ocean basin which lacks it)

These are the first pyroclastic deposits we’ve ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible,” says Robert Reves-Sohn, staff member of the WHOI and lead scientist of the expedition carried out on the Swedish icebreaker Oden in 2007.

and that this particular (nine year old) eruption is responsible for the thinning ice? That's reaching just a bit don't cha think?

Only reaching as far as the people who think my SUV is responsible.

Actually, the oceanic crust in that region is unusually thin and the overall hydrothermal venting in the surrounding area is (and has been) very active. That's one reason that the Gakkel ridge spreads at a much much slower pace than most oceanic ridges.

As as side note, the hydrothermal vents there apparently have a good chance of harboring some interesting forms of life, possibly even new species. They believe the basin was formed about 65 million years ago and it apparently doesn't share any deep water connections with neighboring oceans.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Only reaching as far as the people who think my SUV is responsible.

Don't be so hard on yourself. It's not all your fault.

[billvon 3,078]

>Volcanic eruptions under the Arctic couldn't possibly melt the ice now could it?

Previously-undiscovered massive undersea volcanoes! Yeah, that's the ticket. It works better than last year's claim of "the ice really isn't melting."

Although volcanoes sounds kind of desperate, and people might notice that all the volcanoes in Antarctica aren't doing much. Wait - it's all natural! That's _really_ what's happening. The pole melts like this every year. It's summer, you idiots!

Hmm, but people fly over the pole pretty regularly now, so that won't work. I know! It's the liberals and Al Gore! HE'S melting the pole with all his emissions! That and gay marriage. They are the real culprits here.

[piper17 1]

Maybe the federal government/congress should go after Al Gore for the "windfall profits" that he had made with his bogus global warming movie and his lectures/rants.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[jcd11235 0]

It comes as such a relief that we have posters in SC that know so much more about climatology than climatologists. Thanks for explaining everything.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It comes as such a relief that we have posters in SC that know so much more about climatology than climatologists. Thanks for explaining everything.

Well, why not? We have posters that believe climatologists know more about statistics than statisticians...

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Maybe the federal government/congress should go after Al Gore for the "windfall profits" that he had made with his bogus global warming movie and his lectures/rants.

Gore donated the profits from his book and movie to a foundation/institution devoted to understanding and mitigating global warming.

But why should anyone let facts get in the way of their Gore bashing?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, why not? We have posters that believe climatologists know more about statistics than statisticians...

Are you referring to the thoroughly and repeatedly debunked M&M paper? It was more than just climatologists that called them on their BS methodologies.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AWL71 0]

Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk. Ice melts, ice freezes. That happens when the climate changes naturally. But keep preaching your GW gospel of fear. We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no different climate wise.

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

[billvon 3,078]

> Maybe the federal government/congress should go after Al Gore for
>the "windfall profits" that he had made with his bogus global warming
>movie and his lectures/rants.

Eeeeeexcellllent. Needs a bit more work before it becomes a real denier rationale though. Perhaps add some stuff about Gore causing the oil shortage.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

> Maybe the federal government/congress should go after Al Gore for
>the "windfall profits" that he had made with his bogus global warming
>movie and his lectures/rants.

Eeeeeexcellllent. Needs a bit more work before it becomes a real denier rationale though. Perhaps add some stuff about Gore causing the oil shortage.

Not gonna happen until they hear it in church or on fringe right ...talk radio... Once Lush Rimjob says it you can bet it will be parroted here within a few minutes

[billvon 3,078]

> Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk.

Of course. And what about aliens? Can you PROVE that aliens aren't causing global warming? I didn't think so.

>We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no
>different climate wise.

RushMC already tried that angle. Who can forget "there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!" Unfortunately, reality caught up with that prediction.

50-100 years down the road it will, of course, be warmer if we continue down the path we're on now. But perhaps you can blame a massive secret volcano under the US. (I here there's a big one in Yellowstone!)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk.

If I'm understanding your post correctly, you are claiming that Voodoo is a religion based on sound, understood science. Is that correct?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk.

Of course. And what about aliens? Can you PROVE that aliens aren't causing global warming? I didn't think so.

>We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no
>different climate wise.

RushMC already tried that angle. Who can forget "there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!" Unfortunately, reality caught up with that prediction.

50-100 years down the road it will, of course, be warmer if we continue down the path we're on now. But perhaps you can blame a massive secret volcano under the US. (I here there's a big one in Yellowstone!)

Oh ya of course there is nothing left to bebate

Your religion is getting the better of you

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

[AWL71 0]

So your saying GW is based on sound, understood science. Bullshit. GW is a theory. You can post thousands of links pointing to scientific research that shows GW is real and I can post thousands of links to the contrary. The climate has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to do so. I'm all for taking care of the enviroment and using energy responsibly but the GW fear mongering gets so old.

Leave the aliens out of this. They just won't to be left alone and work at the post office.

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

[billvon 3,078]

>Your religion is getting the better of you

"There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"

Care to revise that? Or are you going to use the old "I didn't really BELIEVE any of that, I was just posting it" line again?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Your religion is getting the better of you

"There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"I just refered to this in another post, but if you want to know what I really beleive, man has yet to start it

Care to revise that? Or are you going to use the old "I didn't really BELIEVE any of that, I was just posting it" line again?

You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish. I will just keep learning and be humble enought to want to keep learning, unlike you

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, why not? We have posters that believe climatologists know more about statistics than statisticians...

Are you referring to the thoroughly and repeatedly debunked M&M paper? It was more than just climatologists that called them on their BS methodologies.

Funny, a well-reknowned statistician actually shows that MANN'S calculations are bogus. Of course, Dr. Wegman doesn't work for Natural Science and isn't part of the consensus, so you can see how much traction it got. The comparison of the social networks of Dr. Mann and Dr. Wegman is quite interesting as well.

IIRC correctly, it was the M&M correction of Mann's work that prompted the NOAA temperature bias adjustment, with the concurrent realization that 1998 *WASN'T* the hottest year, was it not?

Quote

Your analysis seems to show that, at least in some instances, when you use
the same methodology and the same data, a graph of the results will look like
a hockey stick when the data is decentered, but not when the data is properly
centered.
a. Is that a correct statement?
Ans: Yes. We explicitly looked at the first principal component of the
North American Tree Ring series and demonstrated that the hockey stick
shows up when the data are decentered, but not when properly centered.
We also demonstrated the same effect with the digitized version of the
1990 IPCC curve.
b. Does your analysis prove that every time you use improperly centered
data and the climate field reconstruction methodology (CFR) and get
a hockey stick, the hockey stick will disappear when the data is
properly centered? Or does the shape of the graph with properly
centered data depend on the data?
Ans: The shape of the graph will depend on the underlying data. To
reiterate our testimony, the decentering process as used in MBH98 and
MBH99 selectively prefers to emphasize the hockey stick shape. This is
because the decentering increases the apparent variance of hockey sticks
and principal component methods attempt to find components with the
largest explainable variance. If the variance is artificially increased by
decentering, then the principal component methods will “data mine” for
those shapes. In other words, the hockey stick shape must be in the data to
start with or the CFR methodology would not pick it up. What we have
shown both analytically and graphically in Figure 4.6 is that using the
CFR methodology, just one signal when decentered will overwhelm 69
independent noise series. The point is that if all 70 proxies contained the
same temperature signal, then it wouldn’t matter which method one used.
But this is very far from the case. Most proxies do not contain the hockeystick
signal. The MBH98 methodology puts undue emphasis on those
proxies that do exhibit the hockey-stick shape and this is the fundamental
flaw. Indeed, it is not clear that the hockey-stick shape is even a
temperature signal because all the confounding variables have not been
removed.

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

[billvon 3,078]

> So your saying GW is based on sound, understood science.

Yes.

We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Proven.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and prevents re-radiation of longwave infrared. Proven.

When longwave radiation is captured by increased levels of greenhouse gases, temperatures rise until a new radiative balance is achieved. Proven.

From those basic facts come the many theories, models and predictions that surround climate change.

>The climate has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to do so.

Of course. And that has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.

[billvon 3,078]

>You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish.

And you keep worshiping Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. I'll go with scientists from NASA, NCAR and Scripps.