This is topic Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at's Bulletin Board.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by rimasco on :
Sponsored by

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
2 hours, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture than that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.

"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said in a telephone interview.


The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.

"It appears we're on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don't have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean," he said.

He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. "There aren't many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability," Scambos said.

He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.

Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.

But he saw a continued warm-up as inevitable in the coming decades.

"Long-term and for the next 50 years, I think even the new report will agree that we're in for quite a bit of warming," Scambos said.

"We just barely now, I think, have enough time and enough collective will to be able to get through this century in good shape, but it means we have to start acting now and in a big way."
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Well the Russians will certianly benefit from this..
Posted by rimasco on :
How you figure? Their big furry hats will be rendered obsolete...along with their number 1 excuse for their VUDKA consumption.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
One of Russia's biggest economic problems is that it does not have a seaport that is free of ice year round...

With global warming, this problem is solved, and they will have a way to export all that Caspian Sea oil and natural gas without having to build pipelines through other countries.

Also, Russia is a huge country that is mostly "useless" tundra... With global warming, the southern portions should become more temperate... You follow my drift?

Posted by NaturalResources on :
Well, ok they do have ports in the Black sea, but they don't get full use of it like they want because Turkey, a NATO nation, controls the Bosporus straits.
Posted by rimasco on :
I know what you meant NR....

What do they do about the "Billion" refugee's that will migrate from the south due to the fact that they cant grow anything down there cause it will all be desert and a 160 degrees.......IN THE WINTER
Posted by NaturalResources on :
The Russians don't seem to have a problem keeping the borders closed...
Posted by bdgee on :
Yeah, neither do the Mexicans or the Guatamalians.

So, maybe that tells you something?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Hmmm.... Yes it does Bdgee. It tells me it is very easy for Socialist and (ex)Communist countries to control the border. [Wink]

Is that were we should be headed in order to stop the flow of illegal aliens who pour into this country?
Posted by rimasco on :
I personally think we should just increase border patrols. [Wink]
Posted by bdgee on :
NR, you are passionately obsessed with communism.

There is not one behind every tree, looking to slash your throat.
Posted by glassman on :
all the people with beach property will be hurting bad...

i guess i'll be looking for my retirement beach house at 4 feet elevation (today) [Wink]
Posted by NaturalResources on :
LOL.... and you, like most Americans are complacent to communism and probably believed everything the media spewed out in the 90's about how "communism is dead".

I don't think there is a communist "behind every tree", but I do think that Communism IS NOT DEAD, and is only taking a breather in order to regroup and resupply....

I'll leave it at that, because this is way off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it further, start up a Communism thread and I'll voice my thoughts and opinions there.
Posted by glassman on :
the Chinese ARE communist and they are poised to take control of the world economy because our US govt HANDS them the reins... they must be OK if our govt likes them so much???? [Confused]
Posted by bdgee on :
Originally posted by NaturalResources:
LOL.... and you, like most Americans are complacent to communism and probably believed everything the media spewed out in the 90's about how "communism is dead".

I don't think there is a communist "behind every tree", but I do think that Communism IS NOT DEAD, and is only taking a breather in order to regroup and resupply....

I'll leave it at that, because this is way off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it further, start up a Communism thread and I'll voice my thoughts and opinions there.

Let's get something straight.

Posted by NaturalResources on :
Holy Cow Bdgee... Take a breather... I never suggested that you did.

I was just saying, that while I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you, I don't want to discuss it here because it is taking the thread off topic. I was not assigning any blame to anyone, just stating a fact. I didn't really feel like starting another thread, so I was simply suggesting that if you cared to hear more of what I thought, you could start another thread and I'd discuss it there...

I know you are pretty upset at Munkin Man right now but you don't have to take it out on me...
Posted by rimasco on :
GUYS...Fella's....please...could we bring back the term "pinko-slob"?
Posted by rimasco on :
I see nobody got MM to break his third character yet?
Posted by bdgee on :
The devil you didn't. Not only that, but you presented yourself as the restrained one, pleading with me to stop posting on communism in this thread on communism, as if I tarted it and refused to stop.

You do that sort of crap all the time. Am I to believe you are really too slow to understand the inplications of your approach and inferred condemnations?

It was you, not me that posted on communism. I mearly noted your obsession with the subject.

I am not "pretty upset" with that ill mannered mini-brain. And I am not taking it out on you.

I am disgusted that he insults the intellect of the world with that clap-trap of super subordination of students as the key to success in scholarship. (Of course, he has never experienced success, as he so often informs us.)

Again, it was you that brought in communism, not me.

Maybe you should put some effort into developing a writing style that isn't based on demeaning others or odering them about, so you won't be constantly in attack mode.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Seriously Bdgee,

I wasn't "attacking" you or suggesting anything other than starting a new thread on the topic that I brought up because I didn't want to ruin Rimasco's thread.

Sorry if you took it that way.
Posted by rimasco on :

whos gone clean dat dem dere mess up???

I REKON!!!!!
Posted by andrew on :
After my own research I believe Global Warming is BS. This is my opinion until someone shows me that it is real. The earth naturally warms up and cools down.

How much does the so-called 'greenhouse effect' warm the Earth?
It's estimated that the Earth's surface would be about -18 °C (0 °F, 255 K) with atmosphere and clouds but without the greenhouse effect and that the (we'll call it "natural") greenhouse effect raises the Earth's temperature by ~33 °C (59 °F). Devoid of atmosphere it would actually be a less cold -1 °C (272 K) because the first calculation strangely includes 31% reflection of solar radiation by clouds (which could obviously not occur without an atmosphere) while clouds actually add significantly to the greenhouse effect - for simplicity, just stick with ~33 °C.

[Edited for clarity, April 24] Theoretically, if the planet's surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 K (77 °C), but atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) significantly increase the "escape" of energy to space, leaving Earth's surface more than 60 °C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.

So, despite there being far more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to achieve the current greenhouse effect, and that has been so since before humans discovered fire, evapo-transpiration and thermals transport heat higher in the atmosphere where radiation to space is increased. This is why Earth remains about 15 °C rather than about 77 °C.

Wait a minute! Those aren't the numbers I learned!
Ah! Someone who remembers their science classes eh? Well, you got us. Reference works frequently list the planet's mean surface temperature as 16 °C (61 °F); sometimes 15 °C (59 °F) is mentioned and yes, these are about the expected temperatures by calculation -- in the 1960s and 1970s numbers as high as 65 °F (18 °C) were popular but we haven't seen those for some time. Here we run into a little bit of a problem, however -- taking the Earth's temperature is no trivial task. In fact, even defining precisely what we mean by the absolute surface air temperature is challenging. Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.

Part of the earths natural rhythm.
Posted by bdgee on :
Well, andy, that means that you will newer change your mind, because what you claim is research is regurgitating far right extremist religion based propaganda.

It is, at its core, fundamentally anti-American b-ll sh-t, in that it is designed and intended to undermine the Constitution and subjugate us all to control by religious fanaticism, leaning on and supported only by outdated and backward religious myth.

So you go on believing as you choose, andy, but stop flooding the world with that clap-trap you claim to be serious investigation. It isn't even close to the actual facts. Of course, you and Fat Rush, the Doper and the Champion of Dishonorable Discourse, Sean Hannity and Ann, the Adam's Apple Distorter and Liar will always be looking for ways to destroy America's foundations. That has become what "conservatism" means in the last couple of decades.
Posted by andrew on :
How dare you!! "Looking for ways to destroy America's foundation." I believe different than you and now I am destroying America's foundation?

Bdgee, I respect you because you seem very educated......but why must you put me in with those wackos? I am not democrat or Republican. Sure I used to be Republican. I consider myself an independant now. So please sir do not call me a far right extremist.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes you are participating in destroying America's foundations.

I put you in with the wackos because you preach their sermons.

Not a far right winger? Waddles like a duck....quacks like a duck....has webbed feet......

So long as you practice the prattle of the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the rest of the right wing extreme, claiming there is any viability to the notion that global warming is not scientifically overwhelming and absolutely dangerous, basing your constructed conclusions on things that are totally unrelated to fact or scientific relavance, you are only preaching their sermon, demanding and biased political interpretation rather than one derived of scientific principles.

You may consider yourself independent, but your soul still lives a life of evangelical far rightwing radical extremist, as it did before and that cannot be prevented from showing.

I commend you for trying, but you still have a ways to go before freeing yourself from the mental and emotional shackles of the rightwing. Free thinking is difficult....hard work.....constant work....and requires giving up long ago learned prejudices and favored political solutions.
Posted by rimasco on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by andrew:
[QB] After my own research I believe Global Warming is BS. This is my opinion until someone shows me that it is real. The earth naturally warms up and cools down.[QB][QUOTE]

Well for the record Andy....I hope your right.
Posted by andrew on :
bdgee.....your funny.
Posted by glassman on :
not as funny as Kudlow [Wink]
Posted by bdgee on :
awwwwwww geeeeeee

But don't get any ideas!

I'm strictly a leg man and ever leg I ever liked had something female on one end.
Posted by glassman on :
like i said? not as funny as Kudlow...
Posted by andrew on :
All I am asking is READ with an open mind. Can you do that? hmmmmmm.......

Global warming is always a hot topic in liberal media circles, where the political and scientific consensus is that global climate change is occurring, it is a danger, it is caused by mankind and we need to start doing something serious about reversing it.

For a little balance, we called up Fred Singer, aka "the godfather of global warming denial." An expert on global climate change and a pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone. Now president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group (, his dozen books include "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." I talked to him by telephone from his offices in Arlington, Va.

Q: Here's a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?
A: It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.

Q: What's the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening?
A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.

Q: An epic New Yorker series said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it because of global warming?
A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then it cooled. And it's warming again, but it hasn't reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That's the best prediction.

Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming that's out there in the media-sphere?
A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him?
A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate.

Q: How did you become "the godfather of global warming denial"?
A: That's easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called "The global effects of environmental pollution." At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.

Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement?
A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It's just too complicated.

Q: Give me a sample of how complicated just one little thing can be.
A: The most complicated thing about the atmosphere that the models cannot capture is clouds. First of all, clouds are small. The resolution of the computer models is about 200 miles; clouds are much smaller than that. Secondly, they don't know when clouds form. They have to guess what humidity is necessary for a cloud to form. And of course, humidity is not the only factor. You have to have nuclei -- little particles -- on which the water vapor can condense to form droplets. They don't know that either. And they don't know at what point the cloud begins to rain out. And they don't know at what point -- it goes on like this.

Q: Is this debate a scientific fight or a political fight?
A: Both. I much support a scientific fight, because I'm pretty sure we'll win that -- because the data support us; they don't support the climate models. Basically it's a fight of people who believe in data, or who believe in the atmosphere, versus people who believe in models.

Q: Is it not true that CO2 levels have gone up by about a third in the last 100 years?
A: A little more than a third, yes. I accept that.

Q: Do you say that's irrelevant?
A: It's relevant, but the effects cannot be clearly seen. The models predict huge effects from this, but we don't see them.

Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way?
A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with, and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don't deny that there's some effect of human activities on climate. We need to learn how important they are.

Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way?
A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don't deny that there's some affect of human activities on climate. Cities are warmer now than they used to be. We have changed forests into agricultural fields. That has some affect on climate. We irrigate much of the Earth. That affects climate. And so on. We are having some influence on climate, at least on a small scale. So we need to know these things. We need to how important they are.

Q: And global warming is something we should study but not get panicky about?
A: The thing to keep in mind always is that the natural fluctuations of climate are very much larger than anything we can ascribe ­ so far ­ to any human activity. Much larger. We lived through a Little Ice Age just a few hundred years ago. During the Middle Ages the climate was much warmer than it is today. So the climate does change all the time. We need to understand the scientific reasons for natural climate change. Most of us now think it's the sun that is the real driver of climate. It has something to do with sun spots, but the mechanism is not quite clear. That's what's being studied now.
Posted by bdgee on :
"For a little balance, we called up Fred Singer"

Ballance? Fred Singer?

That's like suggesting that Satan be allowed to rewrite the Ten Commandments to achieve "balance".

That guy is not an atmospheric scientist and he is not an expert on global climate change. He is an expert on chemical instrumentation, a far cry from climate science. He is also a person that has gotten rich by acting as a rightwing political hack.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project is a far rightwing and corporate entity that exists solely to put forth propaganda designed to discredit global warming and any that publish it. It IS NOT a research group of any kind,

You might, want to look at his public statements from ten years ago which directly contradict those you quote above. It isn't difficult to find those statements. You could begin here:

Not a nice try. If you expect to look open minded, citing and following sources claiming qualifications they do not have and paid to generate political fodder for the rightwing to attack science isn't the way.
Posted by glassman on :
just because Fred gets a royalty every time we shoot off some of our more expensive ordnance is no reason to call him a right wing hack [Big Grin]
Posted by bdgee on :
If thgat were the reason, I wouldn't.

He is a rightwing hack because he takes money to misrepresent science for the rightwingers.
Posted by andrew on :
Posted by andrew on :
For every belief you have and support about global warming, I can find one that debunks global warming.

Just debating the issue. Do we really know? You cant tell me 100% it is true. I cant tell you 100% that it is not true.

This does not mean ANYTHING. No I am not a "radical rightwinger". Just my Independant opinion. Isnt this country great that we can have freedom of speech without being called names because we dont believe as someone else. Well... almost, Sorry I dont believe as you do about this. There are many things that you and I believe exactly the same way. I just wish you would not classify me with a particular "group" of people and call me something that I am not. You dont even know me.
Posted by glassman on :
andrew, i can assure you that you cannot find 2 against for every 100 peer reviewed scientific papers that show the evidence for human influenced global warming....

of course all of the scientists are involved in a monstrous conspiracy to destroy our economy, because they don't need $$$. [Roll Eyes]
Posted by glassman on :
here's the foremost American scientific organization: publishers of Science..

Climate experts urge immediate action to offset impact of global warming

Governments and consumers in the United States and worldwide should take immediate steps to reduce the threat of global warming and to prepare for a future in which coastal flooding, reduced crop yields and elevated rates of climate-related illness are all but certain, top U.S. scientists said Tuesday.

At a meeting organized by AAAS and its journal, Science, the climate researchers argued that while some policy experts and sectors of the public dispute the risk, there is in fact no cause for doubt: The world is significantly warmer today than it was a century ago--and it's getting warmer. Without action now, they warned, the impact could be devastating.

usually? when you find "debunkers"? they are not in peer reviewed journals.. they are in places like Fox "News" and other opinion columns...

there is a simple fact that cannot be denied...

we are converting the oil underneath the ground into gas in our atmosphere, and we cannot continue to do so at this rate indefinitely without developing a strategy to neutralise it..
even IF that's not the main cause of what is happening? we can't afford to risk the ADDED risk it presents us with...

you can say you don't believe it all you want...

yes there are many people who point to other causes, but nobody is denying that our ice is disappearing from the planet... and in spite of all the past rapid changes in the earth's climate? we don't see evidence for a situation like the one that is developing now.

if you think you can actually argue with papers like this one:
Winograd et al. (1997) date the ending of the warm period at about the same time as the SPECMAP time scale, so that they require the duration of the Eemian warm period to have been about twice as long as in the SPECMAP scheme of events ( i.e. lasting 22 kyr rather than about 10 kyr). We need to consider the possibility that warm intervals as seen in pollen records have a longer duration than periods of high sea level and low ice volume in the marine record: Kukla et al., 1997, for instance, suggest that the Eemian (as seen in the pollen records) started at about 130 kyr, but ended much later than the end of MIS 5e, and that the duration of land interglacials thus is indeed longer than the period of low ice volume. Such a difference in duration is also apparent in the comparison of terrestrial and land records by Tzedakis et al., 1997 (their fig. 2).

If one accepts the contradictory picture obtained from comparing the Devil's Hole record and some of the terrestrial pollen records with other parts of the world, it seems that for thousands of years warm 'interglacial' type conditions in the mid-latitudes on land could have been occurring at the same time as much colder ocean temperatures and expanded Arctic ice sheets. The Eemian, it appears, could have been a strange beast quite unlike our present interglacial phase (which began rapidly and fairly simultaneously all around the world). This confusion over the nature and duration of the Eemian adds to the difficulty in making simple, general comparisons with our present interglacial, and in interpreting the significance of some of the events seen in the marine and ice core records.

go for it...

these people are using many cross-referencing techniques to come to their conclusions...

Gore's video is pretty dumbed down... nobody working in or at the level of proficiency demonstrated in that paper i linked for you is saying anything other than that we desperately NEED to change course now, and that it's not the loss of our economy we are facing, but our whole environment...

did you know that the disappearance of the large mammals, like mastadons, from North America is also linked to a human migration to North America?
Posted by andrew on :
Who knows the truth? We all have the right to our opinion. I do not call someone names for not believing as I do. I used to do that, but it is a wasted emotion. hmmmmmmmmmmm....
Posted by glassman on :
Andrew, this quote from the page?

If all the icecaps in the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 60-75 meters (200-250 feet). This could not result from modern human activities, and from any realistic cause would take thousands of years to occur.

he has no "backup" for it..he just say s it as if he knows what he's talking about and offers no scientific evidence whatsoever...

the fact is? they are melting, and they are melting (it's measurable right now) much faster than he says.

the fact is that every gallon of gas releases more than 19lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere...

let's put it into an easier to manage format:

it's about (min) 750lbs of CO2 per barrel of oil..
this is dependent on the oil, (where it comes from) and how it's used.

we (US)use about 20,000,000 bbls a day...

the world uses about 80,000,000 bbls a day...

the world is producing from oil alone about 60,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 PER DAY...
to give you an idea of what that is?

the net annual growth of US timber according to the USDA, which already has mortality subtracted out, totaled 612 million m3 (21.6 billion ft3) in 1991...
on average? dried lumber ( that's useable so it's not completeley dry, but we can use that) is about 36 pounds per cubic foot...

so in one year, the US produced about 777 billion pounds of wood...
777divided by 60 is 12.95 days.... in other words? we produce about the same CO2 worldwide by weight every 13 days as we do all the wood in the US in a year... and we produce alot of wood...

how can you say you don't think that would have an effect...

considering that doesn't take in coal and natural gas? i'd say that people who don't beleive it are trying really hard to pretend...
Posted by bdgee on :
Or damned fools.
Posted by NR on : 21110178

© 1997 - 2013 All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2