Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[Whitey44]

New studies show that the increased CO2 from fossil fuel burning is altering the hydrology and water quality of forested watersheds–in much the same way as acid rain.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_...WT.mc_ev=click

Discovery
Acid Rain: Scourge of the Past or Trend of the Present?

New connection between climate change and acidification of Northeast's forests and streams

Has acid rain washed out of forests and streams? Or is a new threat on the way?
Credit and Larger Version
July 25, 2012
The following is part nine in a series on the National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network. Visit parts one, two, three, four, five, six , seven and eight in this series.
Acid rain. It was a problem that largely affected U.S. eastern states. It began in the 1950s when Midwest coal plants spewed sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air, turning clouds--and rainfall--acidic.
As acid rain fell, it affected everything it touched, leaching calcium from soils and robbing plants of important nutrients. New England's sugar maples were among the trees left high and dry.
Acid rain also poisoned lakes in places like New York's Adirondack Mountains, turning them into a witches' brew of low pH waters that killed fish and brought numbers of fish-eating birds like loons to the brink.
Then in 1970 the U.S. Congress imposed acid emission regulations through the Clean Air Act, strengthened two decades later in 1990. By the 2000s, sulfate and nitrate in precipitation had decreased by some 40 percent.
Has acid rain now blown over? Or is there a new dark cloud on the horizon?
In findings recently published in the journal Water Resources Research, Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University and the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Hubbard Brook Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in New Hampshire reports that the reign of acid rain is far from over.
It's simply "shape-shifted" into a different form.
Hubbard Brook is one of 26 NSF LTER sites across the nation and around the world in ecosystems from deserts to coral reefs to coastal estuaries.
Co-authors of the paper are Afshin Pourmokhtarian of Syracuse University, John Campbell of the U.S. Forest Service in Durham, N.H., and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. Pourmokhtarian is the lead author.
Acid rain was first identified in North America at Hubbard Brook in the mid-1960s, and later shown to result from long-range transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants.
Hubbard Brook research influenced national and international acid rain policies, including the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Researchers at Hubbard Brook have continued to study the effects of acid rain on forest growth and on soil and stream chemistry.
Long-term biogeochemical measurements, for example, have documented a decline in calcium levels in soils and plants over the past 40 years. Calcium is leaching from soils that nourish trees such as maples. The loss is primarily related to the effects of acid rain (and acid snow).
Now Hubbard Brook LTER scientists have discovered that a combination of today's higher atmospheric carbon dioxide level and its atmospheric fallout is altering the hydrology and water quality of forested watersheds--in much the same way as acid rain.
"It's taken years for New England forests, lakes and streams to recover from the acidification caused by atmospheric pollution," says Saran Twombly, NSF program director for long-term ecological research.
"It appears that these forests and streams are under threat again. Climate change will likely return them to an acidified state. The implications for these environments, and for humans depending on them, are severe."
Climate projections indicate that over the 21st century, average air temperature will increase at the Hubbard Brook site by 1.7 to 6.5 degrees C, with increases in annual precipitation ranging from 4 to 32 centimeters above the average from 1970-2000.
Hubbard Brook scientists turned to a biogeochemical model known as PnET-BGC to look at the effects of changes in temperature, precipitation, solar radiation and atmospheric carbon dioxide on major elements such as nitrogen in forests.
The model is used to evaluate the effects of climate change, atmospheric deposition, and land disturbance on soil and surface waters in northern forest ecosystems.
It was created by linking the forest-soil-water model PnET-CN with a biogeochemical sub-model, enabling the incorporation of major elements like calcium, nitrogen, potassium and others.
The results show that under a scenario of future climate change, snowfall at Hubbard Brook will begin later in winter, snowmelt will happen earlier in spring, and soil and stream waters will become acidified, altering the quality of water draining from forested watersheds.
"The combination of all these factors makes it difficult to assess the effects of climate change on forest ecosystems," says Driscoll.
"The issue is especially challenging in small mountain watersheds because they're strongly influenced by local weather patterns."
The Hubbard Brook LTER site has short, cool summers and long, cold winters. Its forests are made up of northern hardwood trees like sugar maples, American beeches and yellow birches. Conifers--mostly balsam firs and red spruces--are more abundant at higher elevations.
The model was run for Watershed 6 at Hubbard Brook. "This area has one of the longest continuous records of meteorology, hydrology and biogeochemistry research in the U.S.," says Pourmokhtarian.
The watershed was logged extensively from 1910 to 1917; it survived a hurricane in 1938 and an ice storm in 1998.
It may have more to weather in the decades ahead.
The model showed that in forest watersheds, the legacy of an accumulation of nitrogen, a result of acid rain, could have long-term effects on soil and on surface waters like streams.
Changes in climate may also alter the composition of forests, says Driscoll. "That might be very pronounced in places like Hubbard Brook. They're in a transition forest zone between northern hardwoods and coniferous red spruces and balsam firs."
The model is sensitive to climate that is changing now--and climate changes expected to occur in the future.
In scenarios that result in water stress, such as decreases in summer soil moisture due to shifts in hydrology, the end result is further acidification of soil and water.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.govRelated Websites
NSF LTER Network: http://www.lternet.edu/
NSF Hubbard Brook LTER Site: http://www.hubbardbrook.org/
Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability NSF-Wide Investment (SEES): http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504707


Northeastern lakes were once a witches' brew of acidifying waters that killed fish and birds.
Credit and Larger Version

Will sugar maples turn red in fall? Climate change and acidification of soils may tell the tale.
Credit and Larger Version

Meteorological and precipitation chemistry monitoring at NSF's Hubbard Brook LTER Site.
Credit and Larger Version

Scientist collecting a stream sample at the Hubbard Brook LTER Site.
Credit and Larger Version

A gauging station at Hubbard Brook provides new data on acidification of streams.
Credit and Larger Version

[stumbler]

I would have thought someone might have put up a thread about the new landing on Mars. The pictures have really been something so far but I have to admit this is an angle of the exploration I never thought of.

What the Mars Rover Can Tell Us About Climate Change


NASA's new rover will hunt for signs of Martian climate change, which can help shed light on Earth's own.

Scientists have made great strides in predicting what will happen to Earth's climate, but there is a fundamental problem: We only have one climate to test our hypotheses in. We can't irreversibly hack Earth's climate (by pumping it full of toxic gases, for example) to test whether our assumptions are right or wrong—that, obviously, would be disastrous for Earth's inhabitants. That means climate models are loaded with historical and empirical data to make them function.


If only we could take the model to another planet to really test the underpinning physics.


Bingo. Curiosity, the car-sized mobile chemistry lab that dropped spectacularly onto the surface of Mars yesterday, will give scientists a rare chance to test their assumptions about how climate change works on Earth. It will hunt the surface of Mars for sediment to pick up and drop into its sophisticated onboard machinery, then send back critical insights into how the climate of Mars—once warmer, with rain, rivers, and deltas—has changed over billions of years, lashed by solar winds.


"You learn about how to understand an atmosphere by seeing different atmospheres," said Mark Lemmon, a planetary scientist from Texas A&M University who is part of Curiosity's climate team. "And the more we know about Mars' atmosphere, the better we can really understand our own."

Curiosity allows scientists to "break the model," he said. "We find out much, much more about our place in the universe than we could know just by contemplating ourselves."

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...climate-models

[CS natureboy]

South Africa Snowfall Stuns Johannesburg
By JON GAMBRELL 08/07/12 11:13 AM ET




A man slides down a hill after a rare snowfall in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2012. Temperatures dropped to below freezing Tuesday morning as snow flurries blew through South Africa's commercial hub Johannesburg, dusting the city in white as residents poured into the streets to watch the snowflakes fall. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)



JOHANNESBURG -- People slowly came outside despite the cold wind Tuesday across South Africa, pointed their mobile phone cameras to the sky and opened their mouths to taste a rare snowfall that fell on much of the country.
The snow began Tuesday morning, part of an extreme cold snap now biting into a nation still in its winter months. By mid-afternoon, officials recorded snowfall across every South African province except Limpopo, though a formal report from the region had yet to reach the South African Weather Service, agency spokeswoman Kenosi Machepa said. Satellite imagery suggested the snow reached there as well, she said.
The snow closed some roads and at least one high-altitude pass.
As the snow fell, workers at offices in Johannesburg rushed outside. Some twirled and danced as the flakes fell. One man rushed to the top of a snow-covered hill and slid down, using a cardboard box as an improvised toboggan. Despite the cold and the snow, beggars who line traffic lights in the city continued to ask passing motorists for cash.
The snow grew heavier in the afternoon in Johannesburg, covering rooftops and slicking roads. Snowflakes are a rare commodity in Johannesburg, even during winter. South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.
In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said.
The cold weather is expected to last a few days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1752105.html

[clarise]

Today on the WSJ's op-ed page, Fred Krupp declares the war on climate change over with a piece entitled, The New Climate-Change Consensus.

We'll just see how long this "consensus" lasts.

Perhaps 24 hours.

Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund and a confirmed disciple of the Climate Change Gospel. Yet he somehow regards himself as a credible bipartisan voice. Whatever. Takes all kinds.

In the first sentence he says, "One scorching summer doesn't confirm that climate change is real anymore than a white Christmas proves it is a hoax."

Nevertheless, he declares the debate over and done, and he makes the claim that both sides have come to agreement that climate change is real.

There is just one little problem.

Not a single contrarian voice is quoted to express agreement.

Huh. Weird.

I am sure the contrarians appreciate having words put in their mouths by the president of an organization that would not exist without federal funding for climate change studies.

Yes. Very appreciative, indeed.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by clarise

Today on the WSJ's op-ed page, Fred Krupp declares the war on climate change over with a piece entitled, The New Climate-Change Consensus.

We'll just see how long this "consensus" lasts.

Perhaps 24 hours.

Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund and a confirmed disciple of the Climate Change Gospel. Yet he somehow regards himself as a credible bipartisan voice. Whatever. Takes all kinds.

In the first sentence he says, "One scorching summer doesn't confirm that climate change is real anymore than a white Christmas proves it is a hoax."

Nevertheless, he declares the debate over and done, and he makes the claim that both sides have come to agreement that climate change is real.

There is just one little problem.

Not a single contrarian voice is quoted to express agreement.

Huh. Weird.

I am sure the contrarians appreciate having words put in their mouths by the president of an organization that would not exist without federal funding for climate change studies.

Yes. Very appreciative, indeed.

The politically conservative software engineer has spoken her opinion on science. Watch as she tries to use string theory to explain climate change and extreme weather events. Watch as she attempts destroy technological advances in electric automobiles with a single blow.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

South Africa Snowfall Stuns Johannesburg
By JON GAMBRELL 08/07/12 11:13 AM ET




A man slides down a hill after a rare snowfall in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2012. Temperatures dropped to below freezing Tuesday morning as snow flurries blew through South Africa's commercial hub Johannesburg, dusting the city in white as residents poured into the streets to watch the snowflakes fall. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)



JOHANNESBURG -- People slowly came outside despite the cold wind Tuesday across South Africa, pointed their mobile phone cameras to the sky and opened their mouths to taste a rare snowfall that fell on much of the country.
The snow began Tuesday morning, part of an extreme cold snap now biting into a nation still in its winter months. By mid-afternoon, officials recorded snowfall across every South African province except Limpopo, though a formal report from the region had yet to reach the South African Weather Service, agency spokeswoman Kenosi Machepa said. Satellite imagery suggested the snow reached there as well, she said.
The snow closed some roads and at least one high-altitude pass.
As the snow fell, workers at offices in Johannesburg rushed outside. Some twirled and danced as the flakes fell. One man rushed to the top of a snow-covered hill and slid down, using a cardboard box as an improvised toboggan. Despite the cold and the snow, beggars who line traffic lights in the city continued to ask passing motorists for cash.
The snow grew heavier in the afternoon in Johannesburg, covering rooftops and slicking roads. Snowflakes are a rare commodity in Johannesburg, even during winter. South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007.
In Pretoria, the country's capital, flurries filled the sky during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the first snowfall there since 1968, the weather service said.
The cold weather is expected to last a few days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1752105.html

CSNB,
Are you trying to make a point with this?

[vegasmale2010]

climate is a ever changing thing... what was once lush forrest are not desolate deserts.. we just now have the media telling us is hotter thant it was ..but earth always corrects it self. as a young kid my grama always talked about 40 days of rain and a huge flood.. and how it would come back again.. and 3 years ago scientist discovered a huge tsunami hit the western coast of mexico in the 13th century.. the chienese kept records of the tsunami even placing stones as to where the water reached and not to build past that or else. worring about climate is like worring about the traffic, who cares is good and bad but mostly good.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Areas in worst drought categories rise by 50 percent, US says








http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...t-us-says?lite

Originally Posted by Whitey44

CSNB,
Are you trying to make a point with this?

Perhaps you should ask your buddy stumbler the same question?

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Perhaps you should ask your buddy stumbler the same question?

A freak overnight sprinkle of snow is not an indicator of climate change on it's own.

The drought is an extreme weather event. The frequency of which seems to be increasing. After all, we had a major draughts for 2 years in a row. Is it proof of climate cange? No, but it is consistent with what climatologists tell us to expect with climate change.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by vegasmale2010

climate is a ever changing thing... what was once lush forrest are not desolate deserts.. we just now have the media telling us is hotter thant it was ..but earth always corrects it self. as a young kid my grama always talked about 40 days of rain and a huge flood.. and how it would come back again.. and 3 years ago scientist discovered a huge tsunami hit the western coast of mexico in the 13th century.. the chienese kept records of the tsunami even placing stones as to where the water reached and not to build past that or else. worring about climate is like worring about the traffic, who cares is good and bad but mostly good.

Yes, that is correct that climates change on their own without the interference of mankind. However, scientists are now making a successful arguement that mankind is having an effect upon climate also. When Dr. Arrhenius first proposed that his theory that the burning of fossil fuels could produce a global warming, based upon Fourier's greenhouse effect, he believed that it could be a benefit to mankind. That was back in the 19th century. Scientific data and analysis over the past 125 years shows that the warming trend has continued and that the effects will not be a benefit. With all this in mind, we should take the information that learned scientists are presenting us with and act upon it in the best interests of ourselves and the planet which we inhabit.

[tommyturtle]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

A freak overnight sprinkle of snow is not an indicator of climate change on it's own.

The drought is an extreme weather event. The frequency of which seems to be increasing. After all, we had a major draughts for 2 years in a row. Is it proof of climate cange? No, but it is consistent with what climatologists tell us to expect with climate change.

We had the dust bowl years in the 1930's. We had a lot of cold winters in the 1970's. We had ice ages in the past. Greenland was at one time...green. All that any of this proves is that the weather changes. Nothing more.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

A freak overnight sprinkle of snow is not an indicator of climate change on it's own.

The drought is an extreme weather event. The frequency of which seems to be increasing. After all, we had a major draughts for 2 years in a row. Is it proof of climate cange? No, but it is consistent with what climatologists tell us to expect with climate change.

And finally some people are beginning to get the message that global warming/climate change is very really and has an impact on them.

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Yes, that is correct that climates change on their own without the interference of mankind. However, scientists are now making a successful arguement that mankind is having an effect upon climate also. When Dr. Arrhenius first proposed that his theory that the burning of fossil fuels could produce a global warming, based upon Fourier's greenhouse effect, he believed that it could be a benefit to mankind. That was back in the 19th century. Scientific data and analysis over the past 125 years shows that the warming trend has continued and that the effects will not be a benefit. With all this in mind, we should take the information that learned scientists are presenting us with and act upon it in the best interests of ourselves and the planet which we inhabit.

And one thing the deniers must actively block from their minds is that scientists have ice core samples going back more than 600,000 years. Those samples not only measure CO2 levels they provide proof of how things like volcanoes affected the earth's climate. They can identify the chemical make up of CO2 from natural causes and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There's no real doubt about it so all the deniers can do is pretend this scientific data base does not exist.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

A freak overnight sprinkle of snow is not an indicator of climate change on it's own.

The drought is an extreme weather event. The frequency of which seems to be increasing. After all, we had a major draughts for 2 years in a row. Is it proof of climate cange? No, but it is consistent with what climatologists tell us to expect with climate change.

And finally some people are beginning to get the message that global warming/climate change is very really and has an impact on them.

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Yes, that is correct that climates change on their own without the interference of mankind. However, scientists are now making a successful arguement that mankind is having an effect upon climate also. When Dr. Arrhenius first proposed that his theory that the burning of fossil fuels could produce a global warming, based upon Fourier's greenhouse effect, he believed that it could be a benefit to mankind. That was back in the 19th century. Scientific data and analysis over the past 125 years shows that the warming trend has continued and that the effects will not be a benefit. With all this in mind, we should take the information that learned scientists are presenting us with and act upon it in the best interests of ourselves and the planet which we inhabit.

And one thing the deniers must actively block from their minds is that scientists have ice core samples going back more than 600,000 years. Those samples not only measure CO2 levels they provide proof of how things like volcanoes affected the earth's climate. They can identify the chemical make up of CO2 from natural causes and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There's no real doubt about it so all the deniers can do is pretend this scientific data base does not exist.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The politically conservative software engineer has spoken her opinion on science. Watch as she tries to use string theory to explain climate change and extreme weather events. Watch as she attempts destroy technological advances in electric automobiles with a single blow.

A debate about climate change between a computer scientist and an electronics engineer.

Let the good times roll

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

A debate about climate change between a computer scientist and an electronics engineer.

Let the good times roll

You forgot to mention the thousands of scientists all over the world who have been studying human caused global warming/climate change for more than 30 years. Which means there is no real debate at all other than in the heads of brainwashed deniers

[stumbler]

Hottest Month On Record: July 2012 Breaks 1936 Record For Lower 48 States

July 2012 was officially not only the warmest July on record, but also the warmest month ever recorded for the lower 48 states, according to a report released Wednesday by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. The average temperature for the month came in at 77.6°F overall, which is 3.3°F higher than the 20th-century average, and 0.2°F warmer than the previous hottest month on record, which was July 1936, way back in the Dust Bowl era.


It wasn’t just that July was a single record month: the 12 months ending with July was the warmest such period since modern recordkeeping began in 1895, and the January-July 2012 period was also the warmest on record.


The National Climatic Data Center also looked at precipitation: the average for July was 2.57 inches, which was 0.19 inches below average. That may not sound like much of a shortfall, but the nation’s midsection experienced near-record dryness.


Overall, the so-called drought footprint for the states, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, covered nearly 63 percent of the total land area, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. The drought is the most widespread and intense drought since at least 1956, and is expected to cost billions in damage to agricultural interests, as what was expected to be a bumper corn crop withered under unrelenting heat and dry conditions.


Extreme weather continued to plague the nation as well. The U.S. Climate Extremes Index, which keeps track of the highest and lowest extremes in temperatures, precipitation, and other events, stood at a record 46 percent for the period January-July, 2012, which is twice the average. That means that nearly half the country was affected by extreme weather conditions during the period. The record (42 percent) was last set in 1934 — again, during the Dust Bowl.


Much of the explanation for the currently high index is due to very warm daytime temperatures and warm overnight temperatures across a record-large area of the nation. The overnight warmth is what distinguishes July, 2012 from July, 1936. "In 1936," said NOAA scientist Jake Crouch in an interview, "the record was driven primarily by high daytime temperatures." In both cases, the daytime highs were driven in part by drought: when the soil is wet, said Crouch, "solar energy goes into evaporating moisture." When it's dry, the same energy goes into raising the thermometer.



Warm overnights, however, don't have much to do with soil moisture, so they're a more robust signal that the planet is warming overall. They're also more dangerous than daytime heat. "Cooler temperatures at night let our bodies recover," said Crouch.



As Climate Central reported yesterday, record daily high temperatures through August 5 of this year have already eclipsed the number of record daily highs set during all of 2011, a remarkable feat.


Some of the other highlights in the report:


— The largest departures from average temperatures occurred across most of the Plains, the Midwest and along the Eastern Seaboard.


— July temperatures in 32 states were among the top 10 on record. Seven had their second-warmest temperatures, and Virginia had its warmest July.


— Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri had precipitation totals among the 10 lowest on record. These states include some of the nation’s prime cropland; a broader swath of agricultural states known as the Primary Corn and Soybean Agricultural Belt, had its eighth driest July, third driest June-July, and sixth driest April-July (which covers the entire growing season so far) on record.


— July’s heat and dryness created ideal conditions for wildfires, and more than 2 million acres burned during July, nearly 30 percent above average.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1756217.html

[freespiritx]

And yet, there are still those who say climate change, and global warming is a fabrication.
What's it going to take to bring the governments on side, and force change.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by freespiritx

And yet, there are still those who say climate change, and global warming is a fabrication.
What's it going to take to bring the governments on side, and force change.

Perhaps mass extinction.

NASA scientist warns of mass extinction from global warming

James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned Wednesday that human-made climate change could lead to the deaths of millions of species.


“If we continue with business as usual this century, we will drive to extinction 20 to 50 percent of the species on the planet,” he told Current TV host Eliot Spitzer. “We are pushing the system an order of magnitude faster than any natural changes of climate in the past.”


In a recently published study, Hansen and his team concluded that the drastic increase in record high temperatures in recent years could be directly traced to human-made climate change, particularly the increase in greenhouse gases.


“If we want to stabilize the climate at levels not much warmer than it is now, we need to begin to reduce emissions now, within the next few years,” he told Spitzer. “We’re gonna have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and that is not as difficult as you think. If we would just make fossil fuels pay for their true cost to society, we could begin to move to different energies and energy efficiency.”


Watch video, courtesy of Current TV, below:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/0...lobal-warming/

[Whitey44]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,2118987.story

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,2118987.story
baltimoresun.com

Do the Koch brothers still not believe in climate change, or do they just not care?

Liberals' favorite villains have funded research confirming a theory their favored candidates deny

By David Horsey
6:00 AM EDT, August 6, 2012

Advertisement

Are two of the left's most useful villains, Charles and David Koch, not quite as unredeemable as liberals believe? Could it be they might change their minds about climate change and admit that it is real?
Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at University of California-Berkeley, says that, after years of paying for studies by global warming skeptics, the Koch brothers honestly want to get the science clarified. They helped fund Mr. Muller, who only three years ago doubted that the Earth was heating up to dangerous levels due to human activity. Now, with his Koch-funded research complete, he has reversed himself.
In a column published in the New York Times, Mr. Muller wrote, "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago, I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Mr. Muller can now be welcomed into the enormous club of scientists who have, for years, been warning about this impending threat to life as we have known it on this planet. The question is whether his conversion can bring along any conservative politicians, such as most of the Republicans in Congress. Scientific research is unlikely to convince them. (Why should facts sway them now if they have resisted the truth up to this point?) But Republicans might possibly re-assess if the word comes down from two of their biggest financial backers, the Koch brothers.
Through their super PAC, Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs have dumped a mountain of money into Republican campaigns. They were the sugar daddies behind Herman Cain's curious run for president and now are doing their best to elect Mitt Romney. When these libertarian billionaires snap their fingers, Republicans rush to do their bidding.
Mr. Muller told U.S. News blogger Elizabeth Flock that the Kochs do not match the caricature liberals draw of them. "People think they can look into the minds of Charles and David Koch," Mr. Muller said to Ms. Flock. "But I have had conversations with them where they are interested in the science and the proof, so that these issues (of climate change) would be resolved."
I will believe it when I see it.
Sure, it is entirely possible that the Kochs do accept MR. Muller's findings. There are probably plenty of people like them at the highest levels of the oil and coal industries who already believe climate change is real and is caused by CO2 emissions from human activities. These folks are not dummies, after all. But they are also the people who put the special in special interests. Petrochemical kings like the Kochs might understand that the burning of fossil fuels is pushing humanity toward a precipice, yet they don't really give a damn. When fortunes are at stake and economic power is on the line, quarterly profits invariably outweigh the fate of future generations.
It is no longer necessary to accept abstract science to believe in climate change. The severe drought striking much of the West, Midwest and South presents much more tangible and alarming evidence. Climatologists say drought may be the new normal in those regions. But will the many Republican politicians from those parts of the country stop denying the reality of climate change? Will they spring into action to help their constituents living on that drying land?
Nope, they will do nothing -- unless the moneymen of industry snap their fingers and say jump.
Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Horsey is a political commentator for the Los Angeles Times. Go to latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/ to see more of his work.


Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

[Whitey44]

[stumbler]

Melting Arctic Ice Observed By ESA Satellite Raises Concerns

Within a decade, the Arctic could possibly see summer days that are ice-free, a British scientist recently warned.


Dr. Seymour Laxon, at University College London's Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, told BBC Radio 4 that early satellite data suggests Arctic ice is melting at a rate even faster than scientists had previously warned.



By combining data from NASA's IceSat with preliminary results from European Space Agency satellite CryoSat-2, Laxon and his team found a 50% greater rate of ice loss than most past estimates. The preliminary data suggested that since 2004, the Arctic saw an annual ice loss of up to 900 cubic km a year, reports BBC News.



Laxon told The Guardian, "Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water."


The work by Laxon's team is noteworthy because they can now measure a decline in the thickness of the ice, while past measurements focused on the melting area. Laxon explained to BBC Radio 4 that they got a sense of the total amount of ice in the Arctic, and saw "a very strong decline not just in the extent, but also in the thickness" of the ice.



Laxon found the CryoSat measurements were accurate enough to determine volume decline, and added in the radio interview that he was "reasonably" confident in the NASA measurements, although there were fewer on the ground measurements to check them. The findings are preliminary, and their next step will be to place the data into models for an accurate forecast.


He told BBC News, "We have to be cautious until our data has been properly analysed as part of a climate model, but this does suggest that the Arctic might be ice-free in summer for a day at least by the end of the decade."



The findings may carry broader implications, as a melting Arctic affects other regions of the world. University College London's Professor Chris Rapley told The Guardian, "The Arctic is particularly vulnerable to the impact of global warming ... It is telling us that something highly significant is happening to Earth."


Last month, NASA scientists reported notable acceleration in melting from Greenland -- 97 percent of the region's ice sheet surface had thawed. Although the specific melting event could be part of a natural variation, NASA's Tom Wagner told HuffPost, "We have abundant evidence that Greenland is losing ice, probably because of global warming, and it's significantly contributing to sea level rise."


As the ice melts, Shell is pursuing Arctic drilling plans, to the ire of activists. Paul McCartney blogged on HuffPost, "As the ice retreats, the oil giants are moving in. Instead of seeing the melting as a grave warning to humanity, they're eyeing the previously inaccessible oil beneath the seabed at the top of the world. They're exploiting the disappearance of the ice to drill for the very same fuel that caused the melting in the first place."


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently conducted a hearing to discuss a stronger Coast Guard presence as melting ice opens up the Arctic to new activity. According to the Associated Press, she mentioned other models suggesting an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summers after 2030, and stated, "This is an extraordinary change on our planet and we must be ready for it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1775228.html

[CS natureboy]

WCK [08/11 08:35]
The climate disinformation ministry earlier this year tauted forest fires as more evidence of extreme weather caused by warming. As usual the public was lied to as fires this year are well below normal.

2012 (1/1/12 - 8/10/12) Fires: 39,445 Acres: 5,047,443
2011 (1/1/11 - 8/10/11) Fires: 47,187 Acres: 6,320,510
2010 (1/1/10 - 8/10/10) Fires: 41,614 Acres: 2,167,361
2009 (1/1/09 - 8/10/09) Fires: 59,990 Acres: 4,969,641
2008 (1/1/08 - 8/10/0 Fires: 56,778 Acres: 3,991,073
2007 (1/1/07 - 8/10/07) Fires: 59,258 Acres: 5,548,273
2006 (1/1/06 - 8/10/06) Fires: 74,045 Acres: 5,994,790
2005 (1/1/05 - 8/10/05) Fires: 41,003 Acres: 5,285,571
2004 (1/1/03 - 8/10/04) Fires: 50,774 Acres: 5,623,787
2003 (1/1/03 - 8/10/03) Fires: 39,467 Acres: 1,958,238

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

New studies show that the increased CO2 from fossil fuel burning is altering the hydrology and water quality of forested watersheds–in much the same way as acid rain.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_...WT.mc_ev=click

Discovery
Acid Rain: Scourge of the Past or Trend of the Present?

New connection between climate change and acidification of Northeast's forests and streams

Has acid rain washed out of forests and streams? Or is a new threat on the way?
Credit and Larger Version
July 25, 2012
The following is part nine in a series on the National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network. Visit parts one, two, three, four, five, six , seven and eight in this series.
Acid rain. It was a problem that largely affected U.S. eastern states. It began in the 1950s when Midwest coal plants spewed sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air, turning clouds--and rainfall--acidic.
As acid rain fell, it affected everything it touched, leaching calcium from soils and robbing plants of important nutrients. New England's sugar maples were among the trees left high and dry.
Acid rain also poisoned lakes in places like New York's Adirondack Mountains, turning them into a witches' brew of low pH waters that killed fish and brought numbers of fish-eating birds like loons to the brink.
Then in 1970 the U.S. Congress imposed acid emission regulations through the Clean Air Act, strengthened two decades later in 1990. By the 2000s, sulfate and nitrate in precipitation had decreased by some 40 percent.
Has acid rain now blown over? Or is there a new dark cloud on the horizon?
In findings recently published in the journal Water Resources Research, Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University and the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Hubbard Brook Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in New Hampshire reports that the reign of acid rain is far from over.
It's simply "shape-shifted" into a different form.
Hubbard Brook is one of 26 NSF LTER sites across the nation and around the world in ecosystems from deserts to coral reefs to coastal estuaries.
Co-authors of the paper are Afshin Pourmokhtarian of Syracuse University, John Campbell of the U.S. Forest Service in Durham, N.H., and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. Pourmokhtarian is the lead author.
Acid rain was first identified in North America at Hubbard Brook in the mid-1960s, and later shown to result from long-range transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants.
Hubbard Brook research influenced national and international acid rain policies, including the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Researchers at Hubbard Brook have continued to study the effects of acid rain on forest growth and on soil and stream chemistry.
Long-term biogeochemical measurements, for example, have documented a decline in calcium levels in soils and plants over the past 40 years. Calcium is leaching from soils that nourish trees such as maples. The loss is primarily related to the effects of acid rain (and acid snow).
Now Hubbard Brook LTER scientists have discovered that a combination of today's higher atmospheric carbon dioxide level and its atmospheric fallout is altering the hydrology and water quality of forested watersheds--in much the same way as acid rain.
"It's taken years for New England forests, lakes and streams to recover from the acidification caused by atmospheric pollution," says Saran Twombly, NSF program director for long-term ecological research.
"It appears that these forests and streams are under threat again. Climate change will likely return them to an acidified state. The implications for these environments, and for humans depending on them, are severe."
Climate projections indicate that over the 21st century, average air temperature will increase at the Hubbard Brook site by 1.7 to 6.5 degrees C, with increases in annual precipitation ranging from 4 to 32 centimeters above the average from 1970-2000.
Hubbard Brook scientists turned to a biogeochemical model known as PnET-BGC to look at the effects of changes in temperature, precipitation, solar radiation and atmospheric carbon dioxide on major elements such as nitrogen in forests.
The model is used to evaluate the effects of climate change, atmospheric deposition, and land disturbance on soil and surface waters in northern forest ecosystems.
It was created by linking the forest-soil-water model PnET-CN with a biogeochemical sub-model, enabling the incorporation of major elements like calcium, nitrogen, potassium and others.
The results show that under a scenario of future climate change, snowfall at Hubbard Brook will begin later in winter, snowmelt will happen earlier in spring, and soil and stream waters will become acidified, altering the quality of water draining from forested watersheds.
"The combination of all these factors makes it difficult to assess the effects of climate change on forest ecosystems," says Driscoll.
"The issue is especially challenging in small mountain watersheds because they're strongly influenced by local weather patterns."
The Hubbard Brook LTER site has short, cool summers and long, cold winters. Its forests are made up of northern hardwood trees like sugar maples, American beeches and yellow birches. Conifers--mostly balsam firs and red spruces--are more abundant at higher elevations.
The model was run for Watershed 6 at Hubbard Brook. "This area has one of the longest continuous records of meteorology, hydrology and biogeochemistry research in the U.S.," says Pourmokhtarian.
The watershed was logged extensively from 1910 to 1917; it survived a hurricane in 1938 and an ice storm in 1998.
It may have more to weather in the decades ahead.
The model showed that in forest watersheds, the legacy of an accumulation of nitrogen, a result of acid rain, could have long-term effects on soil and on surface waters like streams.
Changes in climate may also alter the composition of forests, says Driscoll. "That might be very pronounced in places like Hubbard Brook. They're in a transition forest zone between northern hardwoods and coniferous red spruces and balsam firs."
The model is sensitive to climate that is changing now--and climate changes expected to occur in the future.
In scenarios that result in water stress, such as decreases in summer soil moisture due to shifts in hydrology, the end result is further acidification of soil and water.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.govRelated Websites
NSF LTER Network: http://www.lternet.edu/
NSF Hubbard Brook LTER Site: http://www.hubbardbrook.org/
Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability NSF-Wide Investment (SEES): http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504707


Northeastern lakes were once a witches' brew of acidifying waters that killed fish and birds.
Credit and Larger Version

Will sugar maples turn red in fall? Climate change and acidification of soils may tell the tale.
Credit and Larger Version

Meteorological and precipitation chemistry monitoring at NSF's Hubbard Brook LTER Site.
Credit and Larger Version

Scientist collecting a stream sample at the Hubbard Brook LTER Site.
Credit and Larger Version

A gauging station at Hubbard Brook provides new data on acidification of streams.
Credit and Larger Version

The trees up at Mt. Mitchell, the highest point east of the Mississippi here in NC, are dying because of all the acid rain coming from up north.

[clarise]

Well, Fred Krupp's "bipartisan consensus on climate change" lasted for a few days.

(See post somewhere above.)

And Whitey44 had some fun with me, posting a weak ad hominem attack, implying I'm the last nut on earth who is skeptical.

Whatever.

In summary, a brainwashed leftist declared the debate over last week and said that the climate change deniers are finally convinced that global warming is real. So we can start spending money to fix it, you see.

Roger W. Cohen (Fellow, APS), William Happer (Princeton) and Richard S. Lindzen (MIT) have something to say about that. They have written a rebuttal with some inconvenient truths:

* They cite thd NOAA's own data to show that this year's drought is not extraordinary.

* There is no long-range trend toward higher temperatures to be found from the few detectors that have been around long enough to compile a meaningful history.

* There is no trend regionally or intercontinentally. This drought pales as compared against the Dust Bowl years, for example. And worldwide human fossil fuel generation is much more prevalent worldwide than it was in the 1930's.

* No long range trend toward stronger or more frequent tornadoes. 2011 was only the sixth biggest year for strong tornadoes from 1950 "and far from the record."

* 2012 has been unusually quiet for tornadoes, which is why the media has nothing to say about tornadoes this year. (Good news is not news. Only bad news is.)

* Hurricanes: no discernible trend.

* This year is not extraordinary for wildfires. Besides, wildfires are tricky, since human efforts to suppress wildfires and to slow tree-clearing tends to produce stronger fires.

* Even the IPCC, which has been instrumental in the politicization of the global warming debate, says there is nothing extraordinary about the recent warm weather, but the media is harping on it, anyway.

* The authors of the rebuttal cite "tricks" in the strategies used for global warming reporting. For instance, in 1988 Senator Tom Wirth rigged the meeting chamber for James Hansen's testimony on global warming by (1) holding it on the hottest day of the summer, and (2) opening all of the windows on the night before, and (3) sabotaging the air conditioning system.

* CO2 does warm the atmosphere, but not by much. Other effects are much larger.

* Current CO2 levels are not optimal for plant life.

* There is reason to believe that mild warming (and CO2 increases specifically) would benefit humanity by improving the habitability of temperate areas and by improving crop yields.

* Fred Krupp claims that most "conservatives" are climate skeptics, and most "liberals" are climate believers. Yet the skeptics include Nobel physics laureate Ivar Giaever, physicist Freeman Dyson, James Lovelock (famed environmentalist and father of the Gaia Hypothesis), chemist Fritz Vahrenholt, among many others, all of them "liberals."

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Lioness

The trees up at Mt. Mitchell, the highest point east of the Mississippi here in NC, are dying because of all the acid rain coming from up north.

I remember that from the 1960's and 70's before they started limiting sulfur emissions from coal fired generators.

[stumbler]

Greenland breaks ice melting record by four weeks

In a terrifying reminder that climate change is reality, researchers have discovered that Greenland’s ice sheet melted as much as all of last year by Aug. 8—a full four weeks ahead of schedule and breaking any record since scientists began recording data on the ice sheet 30 years ago.

“With more yet to come in August, this year’s overall melting will fall way above the old records. That’s a Goliath year — the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979,” Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York, told Live Science.

The ice sheet typically melts during the summer season, from June to September, but researchers looked at U.S. Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program data to determine that melting was extreme in every region of Greenland. They found melting particularly surprising in the parts of the country with high elevation, where ice usually only melts for a few days a year. But this year, Tedesco said, the melting had already been going on for two months.

The reason this is problematic is not because the amount of water produced is drastic, Tedesco said, but rather because the water could lubricate chunks of snow and ice, causing them to drop more quickly into the ocean.

“It’s no doubt that the warming of the Arctic and whatever is related to that is responsible at least for triggering the melting mechanism at the beginning of the season and providing enough gas to keep it going,” Tedesco said.

This compounds the data NASA distributed in July, which revealed striking satellite data showing 97 percent of ice veneer melting occurred in four days.

Add to that a record-setting rainfall that hit Needles, California, when rain began falling at a temperature of 115°F or 46.1°C, making it the hottest rainfall on record.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/1...by-four-weeks/

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I remember that from the 1960's and 70's before they started limiting sulfur emissions from coal fired generators.

Yep, and the trees are still dying.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Greenland breaks ice melting record by four weeks


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/1...by-four-weeks/

A thirty year record.

Wow.

Say, liar. This could cause icebergs in the North Atlantic. Imagine that.

I've never heard of that before.

Outrageous.

Sheesh.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Greenland breaks ice melting record by four weeks


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/1...by-four-weeks/

Do you ever get tired of running around this forum like chicken little with his head cut off?


Greenland ice sheet melting: Be careful what you read

Get Weather & Climate alerts!





6 photosView the full slideshow »




Related topics

• Extreme Weather
• Greenland
• melt
• NASA
• climate

Advertisement





A NASA report was released with the title “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. Let me jump to the heart of the report that stated something similar has happened before. "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
The NASA report states that by July 12th, satellite measurements had recorded that 97% of the surface ice had thawed. This is where it takes a little brain power. The ice sheet is still there. This is measuring water or slush on the surface of the ice. July is the warmest time of the year in this region naturally. As the sun quickly sinks lower in the sky deeper into summer, so will a quick refreeze take place.
View slideshow:The reasons for the melting ice




While Greenland was above normal, much of Europe was well below normal in June temperature
Photo credit:
NOAA







Video: Ice calving in Greenland creates a dangerous wave



Why this happened is highlighted below. I wanted to address the bigger issue here, which is the reporting. It seems pretty clear that while this appears extreme, the title contradicts the report. Unfortunately if you just look at headlines (how many people have the time to read a complete report), read a regurgitated AP news report, or see this on TV then the bulk of the story will be missed. We have had a hot summer with many records, so it is easy to try and make this connection. Going any further for reasons would be inconveniently misrepresent the truth. In fact, as Greenland had record warmth, most of Europe has record cold temperatures this summer.
Videos of ice breaks are common this time of the year. This particular one here from an Australian tourist shows one ice calving and the boat not able to outrun the giant wave it produced as it fell in the water. Many others like this will accompany warm reports that can add to the impression beyond the scope of the details.
I have argued the recent NOAA Climate report for misleading the public with its headline as well. That stated 2012 started with the hottest 6 month period on record, dating back to 1895. But a closer look at that data actually showed 80% of the cities listed only had data included post 1940. Baltimore was one of them, yet weather data records that date back to 1870. So that was not the hottest on record when data that consists of the 1930s dust bowl era exists. Numerous record highs from that decade alone are still unbroken in many locations.
This is not a political piece, nor an attempt to stir the pot with global warming skeptic chatter. I know some will like to go there, but it is not my purpose. I just want to document the reality of the science and not put a spin on it. The drama of a calamity may drive more attention, but I don’t believe in that for the wrong reason. See the details for yourself. There was no direct cause to sea level rise made here. Even the climatelologists stated that this was right on time with global cycles. If this happens a few more times, then maybe it might cause concern. But with due respect to Joe Witte from NASA, here is what he sent for the reasoning for the melt: The associate images are in the slide show:
A. Huge ridge..in June set stage....UPPER AIR ANOMALIES : Still image +100 meters above normal
B. UPPER AIR anomalies in July #2: Time-lapse, 7 day, mid-June through mid-July (7th -13th)
C. Surface map: still image, June surface temperatures much warmer than normal over Eastern N.A. & Greenland helping to set stage for melting. NOAA image of world, "red-blue dots" surface temperature anomalies. *Note that this is surface temperature data. The satellite data was not nearly as warm.
D. Weather data via WeatherUnderground from Summit-US, Greenland, lat=72-34N, lon 38.30W, high at Summit = 36 F on the 11th at 10,500 feet weather station.
E. SST's along the west coast of Greenland have jumped in July with some surface water areas reaching 40 F,or 5 to 10 degrees F warmer than normal.
F. Notice the abnormal lack of ice along the western shore of Greenland. This NSIDC Image shows normally there's lots of ice that normally keeps the SST at 32 F. No ice mean water can warm up a bit by the sunshine.
G: What was the weather like in 1889? Interesting sidebar on Science Daily. This discussion is about winter 1889 and winter 2012, and NOT the summer. But are the some parallels? (needs more searching for data from summer of 1889).





http://www.examiner.com/article/gree...-what-you-read

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Do you ever get tired of running around this forum like chicken little with his head cut off?


Greenland ice sheet melting: Be careful what you read

Get Weather & Climate alerts!





6 photosView the full slideshow »




Related topics

• Extreme Weather
• Greenland
• melt
• NASA
• climate

Advertisement





A NASA report was released with the title “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. Let me jump to the heart of the report that stated something similar has happened before. "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
The NASA report states that by July 12th, satellite measurements had recorded that 97% of the surface ice had thawed. This is where it takes a little brain power. The ice sheet is still there. This is measuring water or slush on the surface of the ice. July is the warmest time of the year in this region naturally. As the sun quickly sinks lower in the sky deeper into summer, so will a quick refreeze take place.
View slideshow:The reasons for the melting ice




While Greenland was above normal, much of Europe was well below normal in June temperature
Photo credit:
NOAA







Video: Ice calving in Greenland creates a dangerous wave



Why this happened is highlighted below. I wanted to address the bigger issue here, which is the reporting. It seems pretty clear that while this appears extreme, the title contradicts the report. Unfortunately if you just look at headlines (how many people have the time to read a complete report), read a regurgitated AP news report, or see this on TV then the bulk of the story will be missed. We have had a hot summer with many records, so it is easy to try and make this connection. Going any further for reasons would be inconveniently misrepresent the truth. In fact, as Greenland had record warmth, most of Europe has record cold temperatures this summer.
Videos of ice breaks are common this time of the year. This particular one here from an Australian tourist shows one ice calving and the boat not able to outrun the giant wave it produced as it fell in the water. Many others like this will accompany warm reports that can add to the impression beyond the scope of the details.
I have argued the recent NOAA Climate report for misleading the public with its headline as well. That stated 2012 started with the hottest 6 month period on record, dating back to 1895. But a closer look at that data actually showed 80% of the cities listed only had data included post 1940. Baltimore was one of them, yet weather data records that date back to 1870. So that was not the hottest on record when data that consists of the 1930s dust bowl era exists. Numerous record highs from that decade alone are still unbroken in many locations.
This is not a political piece, nor an attempt to stir the pot with global warming skeptic chatter. I know some will like to go there, but it is not my purpose. I just want to document the reality of the science and not put a spin on it. The drama of a calamity may drive more attention, but I don’t believe in that for the wrong reason. See the details for yourself. There was no direct cause to sea level rise made here. Even the climatelologists stated that this was right on time with global cycles. If this happens a few more times, then maybe it might cause concern. But with due respect to Joe Witte from NASA, here is what he sent for the reasoning for the melt: The associate images are in the slide show:
A. Huge ridge..in June set stage....UPPER AIR ANOMALIES : Still image +100 meters above normal
B. UPPER AIR anomalies in July #2: Time-lapse, 7 day, mid-June through mid-July (7th -13th)
C. Surface map: still image, June surface temperatures much warmer than normal over Eastern N.A. & Greenland helping to set stage for melting. NOAA image of world, "red-blue dots" surface temperature anomalies. *Note that this is surface temperature data. The satellite data was not nearly as warm.
D. Weather data via WeatherUnderground from Summit-US, Greenland, lat=72-34N, lon 38.30W, high at Summit = 36 F on the 11th at 10,500 feet weather station.
E. SST's along the west coast of Greenland have jumped in July with some surface water areas reaching 40 F,or 5 to 10 degrees F warmer than normal.
F. Notice the abnormal lack of ice along the western shore of Greenland. This NSIDC Image shows normally there's lots of ice that normally keeps the SST at 32 F. No ice mean water can warm up a bit by the sunshine.
G: What was the weather like in 1889? Interesting sidebar on Science Daily. This discussion is about winter 1889 and winter 2012, and NOT the summer. But are the some parallels? (needs more searching for data from summer of 1889).





http://www.examiner.com/article/gree...-what-you-read

The source of this article is Justin Burk who is a TV weatherman, not a climate scientist, a physicist, or a chemist. We might as well have Bozo make statesments like this. At least he would be honest enough to admit that he is trying to make us laugh at him and that we should not take him seiously.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Do you ever get tired of running around this forum like chicken little with his head cut off?


Greenland ice sheet melting: Be careful what you read

Get Weather & Climate alerts!





6 photosView the full slideshow »




Related topics

• Extreme Weather
• Greenland
• melt
• NASA
• climate

Advertisement





A NASA report was released with the title “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. Let me jump to the heart of the report that stated something similar has happened before. "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
The NASA report states that by July 12th, satellite measurements had recorded that 97% of the surface ice had thawed. This is where it takes a little brain power. The ice sheet is still there. This is measuring water or slush on the surface of the ice. July is the warmest time of the year in this region naturally. As the sun quickly sinks lower in the sky deeper into summer, so will a quick refreeze take place.
View slideshow:The reasons for the melting ice




While Greenland was above normal, much of Europe was well below normal in June temperature
Photo credit:
NOAA







Video: Ice calving in Greenland creates a dangerous wave



Why this happened is highlighted below. I wanted to address the bigger issue here, which is the reporting. It seems pretty clear that while this appears extreme, the title contradicts the report. Unfortunately if you just look at headlines (how many people have the time to read a complete report), read a regurgitated AP news report, or see this on TV then the bulk of the story will be missed. We have had a hot summer with many records, so it is easy to try and make this connection. Going any further for reasons would be inconveniently misrepresent the truth. In fact, as Greenland had record warmth, most of Europe has record cold temperatures this summer.
Videos of ice breaks are common this time of the year. This particular one here from an Australian tourist shows one ice calving and the boat not able to outrun the giant wave it produced as it fell in the water. Many others like this will accompany warm reports that can add to the impression beyond the scope of the details.
I have argued the recent NOAA Climate report for misleading the public with its headline as well. That stated 2012 started with the hottest 6 month period on record, dating back to 1895. But a closer look at that data actually showed 80% of the cities listed only had data included post 1940. Baltimore was one of them, yet weather data records that date back to 1870. So that was not the hottest on record when data that consists of the 1930s dust bowl era exists. Numerous record highs from that decade alone are still unbroken in many locations.
This is not a political piece, nor an attempt to stir the pot with global warming skeptic chatter. I know some will like to go there, but it is not my purpose. I just want to document the reality of the science and not put a spin on it. The drama of a calamity may drive more attention, but I don’t believe in that for the wrong reason. See the details for yourself. There was no direct cause to sea level rise made here. Even the climatelologists stated that this was right on time with global cycles. If this happens a few more times, then maybe it might cause concern. But with due respect to Joe Witte from NASA, here is what he sent for the reasoning for the melt: The associate images are in the slide show:
A. Huge ridge..in June set stage....UPPER AIR ANOMALIES : Still image +100 meters above normal
B. UPPER AIR anomalies in July #2: Time-lapse, 7 day, mid-June through mid-July (7th -13th)
C. Surface map: still image, June surface temperatures much warmer than normal over Eastern N.A. & Greenland helping to set stage for melting. NOAA image of world, "red-blue dots" surface temperature anomalies. *Note that this is surface temperature data. The satellite data was not nearly as warm.
D. Weather data via WeatherUnderground from Summit-US, Greenland, lat=72-34N, lon 38.30W, high at Summit = 36 F on the 11th at 10,500 feet weather station.
E. SST's along the west coast of Greenland have jumped in July with some surface water areas reaching 40 F,or 5 to 10 degrees F warmer than normal.
F. Notice the abnormal lack of ice along the western shore of Greenland. This NSIDC Image shows normally there's lots of ice that normally keeps the SST at 32 F. No ice mean water can warm up a bit by the sunshine.
G: What was the weather like in 1889? Interesting sidebar on Science Daily. This discussion is about winter 1889 and winter 2012, and NOT the summer. But are the some parallels? (needs more searching for data from summer of 1889).





http://www.examiner.com/article/gree...-what-you-read

The source of this article is Justin Berk who is a TV weatherman, not a climate scientist, a physicist, or a chemist. We might as well have Bozo the clown make statements like this. At least he would be honest enough to admit that he is trying to make us laugh at him and that we should not take him seriously.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Do you ever get tired of running around this forum like chicken little with his head cut off?


Greenland ice sheet melting: Be careful what you read

Get Weather & Climate alerts!





6 photosView the full slideshow »




Related topics

• Extreme Weather
• Greenland
• melt
• NASA
• climate

Advertisement





A NASA report was released with the title “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. Let me jump to the heart of the report that stated something similar has happened before. "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
The NASA report states that by July 12th, satellite measurements had recorded that 97% of the surface ice had thawed. This is where it takes a little brain power. The ice sheet is still there. This is measuring water or slush on the surface of the ice. July is the warmest time of the year in this region naturally. As the sun quickly sinks lower in the sky deeper into summer, so will a quick refreeze take place.
View slideshow:The reasons for the melting ice




While Greenland was above normal, much of Europe was well below normal in June temperature
Photo credit:
NOAA







Video: Ice calving in Greenland creates a dangerous wave



Why this happened is highlighted below. I wanted to address the bigger issue here, which is the reporting. It seems pretty clear that while this appears extreme, the title contradicts the report. Unfortunately if you just look at headlines (how many people have the time to read a complete report), read a regurgitated AP news report, or see this on TV then the bulk of the story will be missed. We have had a hot summer with many records, so it is easy to try and make this connection. Going any further for reasons would be inconveniently misrepresent the truth. In fact, as Greenland had record warmth, most of Europe has record cold temperatures this summer.
Videos of ice breaks are common this time of the year. This particular one here from an Australian tourist shows one ice calving and the boat not able to outrun the giant wave it produced as it fell in the water. Many others like this will accompany warm reports that can add to the impression beyond the scope of the details.
I have argued the recent NOAA Climate report for misleading the public with its headline as well. That stated 2012 started with the hottest 6 month period on record, dating back to 1895. But a closer look at that data actually showed 80% of the cities listed only had data included post 1940. Baltimore was one of them, yet weather data records that date back to 1870. So that was not the hottest on record when data that consists of the 1930s dust bowl era exists. Numerous record highs from that decade alone are still unbroken in many locations.
This is not a political piece, nor an attempt to stir the pot with global warming skeptic chatter. I know some will like to go there, but it is not my purpose. I just want to document the reality of the science and not put a spin on it. The drama of a calamity may drive more attention, but I don’t believe in that for the wrong reason. See the details for yourself. There was no direct cause to sea level rise made here. Even the climatelologists stated that this was right on time with global cycles. If this happens a few more times, then maybe it might cause concern. But with due respect to Joe Witte from NASA, here is what he sent for the reasoning for the melt: The associate images are in the slide show:
A. Huge ridge..in June set stage....UPPER AIR ANOMALIES : Still image +100 meters above normal
B. UPPER AIR anomalies in July #2: Time-lapse, 7 day, mid-June through mid-July (7th -13th)
C. Surface map: still image, June surface temperatures much warmer than normal over Eastern N.A. & Greenland helping to set stage for melting. NOAA image of world, "red-blue dots" surface temperature anomalies. *Note that this is surface temperature data. The satellite data was not nearly as warm.
D. Weather data via WeatherUnderground from Summit-US, Greenland, lat=72-34N, lon 38.30W, high at Summit = 36 F on the 11th at 10,500 feet weather station.
E. SST's along the west coast of Greenland have jumped in July with some surface water areas reaching 40 F,or 5 to 10 degrees F warmer than normal.
F. Notice the abnormal lack of ice along the western shore of Greenland. This NSIDC Image shows normally there's lots of ice that normally keeps the SST at 32 F. No ice mean water can warm up a bit by the sunshine.
G: What was the weather like in 1889? Interesting sidebar on Science Daily. This discussion is about winter 1889 and winter 2012, and NOT the summer. But are the some parallels? (needs more searching for data from summer of 1889).





http://www.examiner.com/article/gree...-what-you-read

The source of this article is Justin Berk who is a TV weatherman, not a climate scientist, a physicist, or a chemist. We might as well have Bozo the clown make statements like this. At least he would be honest enough to admit that he is trying to make us laugh at him and that we should not take him seriously.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

The source of this article is Justin Berk who is a TV weatherman, not a climate scientist, a physicist, or a chemist. We might as well have Bozo the clown make statements like this. At least he would be honest enough to admit that he is trying to make us laugh at him and that we should not take him seriously.

We might take you seriously if, just once, you argued the points of detractors on their merits.

Funny how you consider no one authorized to enumerate incontrovertible facts, except the people with whom you agree.

And as for the the people with whom you agree, they can say anything, and be anything. As long as they agree.

For instance:

Above, the liar, Stumbler, posted incontrovertible evidence of global warming, in the form of an article that reports the breaking of an icemelt record that is only 30 years old.

You had nothing to say about that post, or the liar who posted it.

For instance:

Last week I cited an article in which the executive director of a small politically connected non-profit enviromental group unilaterally declared that the true believers and skeptics of global warming have come to consensus.

I think most of us would agree that Fred Krupp is less "qualified" to speak on this subject than the average weatherman, most of whom have at least studied meterology in school. I did not attack Fred Krupp (except to point out that as the head of a group that is dependent on federal funding, he is a biased voice). Instead, I pointed out that he quoted not a single skeptic in support of this "consensus," and I predicted that the "consensus" would not hold.

You had nothing to say about Fred Krupp, or the point.

You attacked me instead. Which is fine. That is what you do. That is what one must expect on this thread, if one is not a true believer.

Yesterday, I declared the "consensus" dead, and for evidence I cited a letter authored by three eminently qualified voices.

You ignored it.

Personally, I would rather have my climate science from a TV weatherman than the executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Or from you, for that matter.

But whatever. This is your thread. And you can run it any way you want, and weep over acid rain and red tide and polar bears to your heart's content.

It's just that arguing with you is, all too often, like arguing with Capnip Everdeen about creationism. To my knowledge, "she" does not claim to be a scientist.

You do.

It gets confusing sometimes, but it's all good.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by clarise

We might take you seriously if, just once, you argued the points of detractors on their merits.

Funny how you consider no one authorized to enumerate incontrovertible facts, except the people with whom you agree.

And as for the the people with whom you agree, they can say anything, and be anything. As long as they agree.

For instance:

Above, the liar, Stumbler, posted incontrovertible evidence of global warming, in the form of an article that reports the breaking of an icemelt record that is only 30 years old.

You had nothing to say about that post, or the liar who posted it.

For instance:

Last week I cited an article in which the executive director of a small politically connected non-profit enviromental group unilaterally declared that the true believers and skeptics of global warming have come to consensus.

I think most of us would agree that Fred Krupp is less "qualified" to speak on this subject than the average weatherman, most of whom have at least studied meterology in school. I did not attack Fred Krupp (except to point out that as the head of a group that is dependent on federal funding, he is a biased voice). Instead, I pointed out that he quoted not a single skeptic in support of this "consensus," and I predicted that the "consensus" would not hold.

You had nothing to say about Fred Krupp, or the point.

You attacked me instead. Which is fine. That is what you do. That is what one must expect on this thread, if one is not a true believer.

Yesterday, I declared the "consensus" dead, and for evidence I cited a letter authored by three eminently qualified voices.

You ignored it.

Personally, I would rather have my climate science from a TV weatherman than the executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Or from you, for that matter.

But whatever. This is your thread. And you can run it any way you want, and weep over acid rain and red tide and polar bears to your heart's content.

It's just that arguing with you is, all too often, like arguing with Capnip Everdeen about creationism. To my knowledge, "she" does not claim to be a scientist.

You do.

It gets confusing sometimes, but it's all good.

I think you need to relax and get fucked like this chick is.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

I think you need to relax and get fucked like this chick is.

You know I think you're right about that.

But in the meantime here's a look at our vanishing glaciers.

Photos: See Ya Later, Lovely Glaciers

This summer could be dubbed the Great Melt. The belt of ice surrounding the Arctic has melted to its lowest level in history, a record seen by many scientists as evidence of long-term climate change. Adding to environmentalists' fears, Royal Dutch Shell sunk its first drill bit into the Arctic seabed, taking the first steps in American offshore oil exploration in these frigid waters.
Today, a new book by photographer James Balog, Ice: Portraits of Vanishing Glaciers, captures in vivid color just what's at stake as climate change erodes ice in some of the world's most extreme places. Balog shared six of his favorites with Climate Desk:

Aerial view, meltwater on Greenland ice sheet © James Balog
James Balog has spent the last 30 years donning crampons, paddling canoes, and hopping into dog sleds and helicopters to capture the world's ice on film. He's been everywhere from Bolivia and Nepal to Alaska and Montana to France and Switzerland, in an ongoing project that he says is "about getting in close to ice and experiencing all its colors and textures and shapes."
This summer's record melt in the Arctic, Balog told Climate Desk as he was en route to a glacier shoot in Iceland, is a reminder that "ice is the canary in the coal mine—you can touch and see and hear climate change."

Bubbles of ancient air rise from Greenland Ice Sheet as it melts, July 14, 2008. The black substance is cryoconite. © James Balog

Greenland Ice Sheet, Greenland, July 10, 2008. Silt and soot blown from afar turn into black "cryoconite," absorb solar heat and melt down into the ice. © James Balog

Stein Glacier, Switzerland, September 25, 2006. © James Balog

Stein Glacier, Switzerland, September 17, 2011. © James Balog

Columbia Glacier, Alaska, June 23, 2006. In mid-1980s, ice filled this valley up to lower edge of dark band of vegetation. Ice deflation since then has reached more than 1,200 vertical feet. © James Balog

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...ry-james-balog

[stumbler]

Media Missing The Big Picture On Solar

A solar industry group announced this week that the U.S. is on track to install as much photovoltaic solar power this year as we did in the last decade. But the media's myopic focus on Solyndra has overshadowed promising signs that the U.S. could be headed towards a clean energy revolution if we provide clear, long-term incentives, rather than walking away after one company's demise.


A Media Matters analysis finds that one year after Solyndra declared bankruptcy, major media outlets still treat it as news despite a distinct lack of new information. Fox News stands out for its overblown coverage: in 2012, the network has discussed Solyndra 84 times in primetime -- three times more than the other major TV networks combined:

Our analysis also found that of those hosted or quoted on Solyndra, 71% opposed federal clean energy investments, while only 25% supported them. Meanwhile, mainstream outlets have advanced baseless allegations that Solyndra's loan was politically motivated, while overlooking the shifting market conditions that led to Solyndra's demise.


While the media continues to cover the Solyndra "scandal," the real story has developed almost unnoticed: clean energy is booming in the U.S., driven in large part by federal investments like the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program.


The report released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association found that U.S. solar installations more than doubled in the second quarter compared to last year, adding 742 megawatts of capacity. This growth was driven largely by new utility-scale solar generation projects, including two large projects -- Agua Caliente and Mesquite Solar -- that benefitted from DOE loan guarantees. The U.S. now has enough installed solar capacity to power one million homes, according to GTM.


The wind industry has also seen tremendous growth in recent years, and recently reached 50 gigawatts of generation capacity, surpassing previous estimates of 40 GW of wind power by 2030. Wind accounts for 35% of new U.S. power capacity since 2007, and the Department of Energy estimates that it could provide 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030.


The U.S. wind boom is due in part to the federal production tax credit, which has enabled wind power to be competitive with natural gas. But unless Congress acts, the tax credit will expire at the end of this year, resulting in the loss of up to 37,000 jobs, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09...n-solar/189835

[Kimiko]

You know, Whitey, I'm game for almost anything...but I really, really don't think I could cum doing that.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You know, Whitey, I'm game for almost anything...but I really, really don't think I could cum doing that.

Yeah, it does look kinda awkward. But, I have a feeling that Clarice might be able to. She is a technical climber...

[Whitey44]

Stumbler,

The recession of the glaciers of Mt. Rainier have been recorded for most of the past century...

A time line of glacier research on Mount Rainier

1857 - A team lead by August Kautz describes the location of the terminus while climbing Mt. Rainier (c).
1870 - Geologists S. Emmons and A. Wilson collect information about the geology and position of glaciers while climbing to the summit of Mount Rainier (c).
1896 - Geologists G. Smith, B. Willis, and glacial geologist I.C. Russell are sent by the U.S. Geological Survey "explore the region... and determine the nature and behavior of the glaciers" on Mt. Rainier. Russell writes a detailed narrative of the glacial geology he observed on the trip to summit. He also suggested that Nisqually glacier be studied on a regular basis by setting up photo stations along the glacier, mapping the terminus of the glacier, and making measurements of glacier flow rates (c).
1905 - University of California geologist J. LeConte made measurements of Nisqually Glacier's flow rate (c).
1913 - F. Matthes (U.S.Geological Survey) creates a topographic map of Mount Rainier, producing the first accurate depiction of glacier location and size (c).
1930's - The National Park Service under the supervision of Schmoe, Bender, Brockman, and others make regular measurement of the terminus of some glaciers on Mount Rainier (c). See Mapping the terminus of glaciers for more information.
1931 - Tacoma City Light Department and the U.S. Geological Survey initiated measurements of surface elevation along profiles across Nisqually Glacier (c). See Monitoring glacier motion for more information.
1950's to present day - A. Harrison, F. Veatch, and others established photo stations near Nisqually Glacier (c). See Mapping the terminus of glaciers for more information.
1960's / 1970's - Kiver and others map ices caves in the glaciers of Mount Rainier (c). Steven Hodge measures velocity and surface elevation on several glaciers (c). Austin Post and Carolyn Driedger (U.S. Geological Survey) map historical terminus positions.
1970's/1980's - D. Crandell and R. Miller (c) investigate the Pleistocene glacial geology of Mt. Rainier. Their work is supported by that of R. Sigafoos and E. Hendricks (c) who made age determinations on moraines using tree-ring dating, and that of Steven Porter and D. Burbank (c) who made moraine age determinations using lichen dating. See Determining the extent of ancient glaciers using post-glacial landforms for more information. Paul Kennard and Carolyn Driedger (c) (U.S. Geological Survey) determine the thickness of glaciers on Mt. Rainier and several other mountains in the Cascade range. See Determining glacier volume for more information.
1990's - Jeremy Mennis (c) (Portland State University) creates a GIS database describing recent changes in the glaciers of Mount Rainier. Thomas Nylen (c) (also of PSU) extends this database pushing the glacial record back to 1896. See Determining glacier characteristics using remote imaging and digital mapping technology for more information.
2000 - The National Park Service has initiated a long-term monitoring program for the Nisqually and Emmons glaciers. Surface elevation measurements are obtained annually on the Nisqually glacier. Mass balance measurements were intiated in 2001 on the Nisqually and Emmons glaciers.

,

[Whitey44]

Here is a map of the Nisqually Glacier terminus on Rainier from 1825 to 1997

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Stumbler,

The recession of the glaciers of Mt. Rainier have been recorded for most of the past century...

A time line of glacier research on Mount Rainier

1857 - A team lead by August Kautz describes the location of the terminus while climbing Mt. Rainier (c).
1870 - Geologists S. Emmons and A. Wilson collect information about the geology and position of glaciers while climbing to the summit of Mount Rainier (c).
1896 - Geologists G. Smith, B. Willis, and glacial geologist I.C. Russell are sent by the U.S. Geological Survey "explore the region... and determine the nature and behavior of the glaciers" on Mt. Rainier. Russell writes a detailed narrative of the glacial geology he observed on the trip to summit. He also suggested that Nisqually glacier be studied on a regular basis by setting up photo stations along the glacier, mapping the terminus of the glacier, and making measurements of glacier flow rates (c).
1905 - University of California geologist J. LeConte made measurements of Nisqually Glacier's flow rate (c).
1913 - F. Matthes (U.S.Geological Survey) creates a topographic map of Mount Rainier, producing the first accurate depiction of glacier location and size (c).
1930's - The National Park Service under the supervision of Schmoe, Bender, Brockman, and others make regular measurement of the terminus of some glaciers on Mount Rainier (c). See Mapping the terminus of glaciers for more information.
1931 - Tacoma City Light Department and the U.S. Geological Survey initiated measurements of surface elevation along profiles across Nisqually Glacier (c). See Monitoring glacier motion for more information.
1950's to present day - A. Harrison, F. Veatch, and others established photo stations near Nisqually Glacier (c). See Mapping the terminus of glaciers for more information.
1960's / 1970's - Kiver and others map ices caves in the glaciers of Mount Rainier (c). Steven Hodge measures velocity and surface elevation on several glaciers (c). Austin Post and Carolyn Driedger (U.S. Geological Survey) map historical terminus positions.
1970's/1980's - D. Crandell and R. Miller (c) investigate the Pleistocene glacial geology of Mt. Rainier. Their work is supported by that of R. Sigafoos and E. Hendricks (c) who made age determinations on moraines using tree-ring dating, and that of Steven Porter and D. Burbank (c) who made moraine age determinations using lichen dating. See Determining the extent of ancient glaciers using post-glacial landforms for more information. Paul Kennard and Carolyn Driedger (c) (U.S. Geological Survey) determine the thickness of glaciers on Mt. Rainier and several other mountains in the Cascade range. See Determining glacier volume for more information.
1990's - Jeremy Mennis (c) (Portland State University) creates a GIS database describing recent changes in the glaciers of Mount Rainier. Thomas Nylen (c) (also of PSU) extends this database pushing the glacial record back to 1896. See Determining glacier characteristics using remote imaging and digital mapping technology for more information.
2000 - The National Park Service has initiated a long-term monitoring program for the Nisqually and Emmons glaciers. Surface elevation measurements are obtained annually on the Nisqually glacier. Mass balance measurements were intiated in 2001 on the Nisqually and Emmons glaciers.

,

And it appears we've set a new record on Arctic Ice Melt.

Arctic ice shrinks to smallest area ever recorded

Sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its smallest extent ever recorded, smashing the previous record minimum and prompting warnings of accelerated climate change.


Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week – less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.


Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/1...ever-recorded/

[stumbler]

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

One of the world’s leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.


In what he calls a “global disaster” now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for “urgent” consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.


In an email to the Guardian he says: “Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades’ time, and that we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geo-engineering ideas that have been put forward.”


These include reflecting the sun’s rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.


Wadhams has spent many years collecting ice thickness data from submarines passing below the arctic ocean. He predicted the imminent break-up of sea ice in summer months in 2007, when the previous lowest extent of 4.17 million square kilometres was set. This year, it has unexpectedly plunged a further 500,000 sq km to less than 3.5m sq km. “I have been predicting [the collapse of sea ice in summer months] for many years. The main cause is simply global warming: as the climate has warmed there has been less ice growth during the winter and more ice melt during the summer.


“At first this didn’t [get] noticed; the summer ice limits slowly shrank back, at a rate which suggested that the ice would last another 50 years or so. But in the end the summer melt overtook the winter growth such that the entire ice sheet melts or breaks up during the summer months.


“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.


Wadhams says the implications are “terrible”. “The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming.”


“As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/1...in-four-years/

[Whitey44]

“Of all the frictional resistances, the one that most retards human movement is
ignorance, what Buddha called 'the greatest evil in the world.' The friction which results
from ignorance can be reduced only by the spread of knowledge and the unification of
the heterogeneous elements of humanity. No effort could be better spent.”

Nikola Tesla

[Whitey44]

“The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his
advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of a planter -- for the
future. His duty is to lay foundation of those who are to come and point the way.”


Nikola Tesla

[Whitey44]

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed - only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle. Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs, the future, for which I really worked, is mine.”

Nikola Tesla

[McDick]

That'll be great if the Arctic passage opens up for shipping. It will reduce the cost, time and fuel needed to ship goods.

As for the oil resources that will opened up, I'm sure the Russians will have hundreds of wells operating before the U.S. could ever finish getting a single permit through.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by McDick

That'll be great if the Arctic passage opens up for shipping. It will reduce the cost, time and fuel needed to ship goods.

As for the oil resources that will opened up, I'm sure the Russians will have hundreds of wells operating before the U.S. could ever finish getting a single permit through.

All true!

[McDick]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

...the Antarctic ice level has set has set another record for being the thickest ever measured on this day.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by McDick

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

...the Antarctic ice level has set has set another record for being the thickest ever measured on this day.

That's not a scientific article from a scientific source.

[daverjax]

Silly Humans. The CLimate is ALWAYS changeing.

WHat you want to establish is Mans Technology being the cause of it.

I'd say modern tech is a contributor, not the sole cause. I point you back to the panic of the late '90s...according to Algors's figures , thought we were supposed to be underwater here on the coasts by now. we're not.

do i see terrible storms, yes, but no more then i've seen before.
Remember there were some years in the past, befor our current level of technology, where we had a endless winter for a cuple of years, thanks to Toba, and Karakatoa.

But yes, Climate is changeing, always has. and We Humans will adapt.