Artic Ice shows marked improvement on last year

Supercell

Erm..search hockey stick..revisted..
1300's were not warmer.. [hint- go read newscientist]

Eric landed on the coast and it was green there, it still is...
Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

AlmightyCushion

Supercell wrote: »

Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

Global warming to allow the production of coffee beans in Ireland.

Deep Easterly

Supercell wrote: »

Erm..search hockey stick..revisted..
what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

When there is coffee to be smelt

Polar icecaps only a rare, freak event in the climate history of the globe. They have come, they have gone, and longer gone, than come.

"ah yes, but it's the speed of change that is occuring that is alarming" that climate change cash in scammers activists decry again and again, and that is when I yawn, a big yawn, a yawn to die for, which is then followed by a smug, satisfied smile.:pac:

M.T. Cranium

Hello, haven't wandered into this one yet.

I think we are near the end of a warming episode in terms of the arctic ice depletion, it may already be getting slightly colder on land although by no means have we seen a real reversal to "old time" winter cold even in northern Canada, but there have been signs of a more normal regime in recent winters. The sea ice will likely be a bit slower to respond and although 2007 won't likely catch 2008's record ice melt, there are some parts of the arctic seeing more melt this season than last (mostly around the Kara Sea). And where it lags behind, it is still more melt than in the average season of even recent "global warming" years.

What I suspect may happen is that we will go into a colder phase but there is still a lot of warmth stored up in the oceans and this could make it a rather muted cold spell that could at some point in five to ten years reverse back to the slight warming each season that marked the late 1990s.

When or if that happens, the arctic ocean ice pack could come under major assault for a few seasons and we may reach that speculated-about removal of ice at least in late summer. If this happens at all, it will probably be around 2020 to 2025.

I certainly don't consider it a certainty. For one thing, the quiet Sun phenomenon could persist and this could turn into a second Maunder for all we know about these things (which is basically nothing). Or it could be a second Dalton minimum and be combined with a major volcanic dust event, same outcome, and rapid cooling of the arctic in particular.

If those things don't intervene, the background climate should remain roughly where it has been since 1980 with perhaps a bit more anomalous warming. I am neither pro nor violently anti AGW as things stand, I look at the temperature increase as being partly natural and enhanced by the additional greenhouse gases. My estimate is that the natural part is about two-thirds of the total, but that's based on what has happened in natural warming cycles in the past. It could easily be anywhere from 50-50 to 90-10 natural, I think the IPCC has over-estimated the percentages of the warming that come from greenhouse gases directly. And the signal for it may be more in terms of higher overnight temperatures and more cloudiness. Daytime temperatures seem to have remained closer to long-term averages in those places where some warming has been reported.

So in conclusion, I think it is all a very complicated situation where the ice is certainly at risk, perhaps starting to show some signs of recovering, and where it's possible we could go in either direction in the near future. I think our human efforts to change the climate will be doomed to futility because too much of the variance is natural, so what can we really do except modify slightly the outcomes? We might be further ahead to accept there is a real risk of losing arctic ice, seeing rising sea levels, and planning for that. We are not forced to keep the rising waters in the oceans either, conceivably we could spend large amounts of money and desalinate large amounts of it, then irrigate desert regions. This might allow us to control rising sea levels and increase inhabitable regions substantially to feed and house an exploding third world population. I would see Mauretania and the southern part of the former Spanish Sahara as excellent locations for large-scale conversion of sea water to fresh water, as there are large expanses of land there with no population whatsoever, very close to sea level, so that engineering could produce basins for the sea water -- if these were deep enough the overall global sea level would fall and if we could channel the water out into irrigation then it would fall further. Of course if it rained more, this might spread back into the oceans, but in that climate, most of the surface moisture would go into the crops produced and the soil reserves, and not reach the oceans again.

junkyard

Supercell wrote: »

Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

It might be happening all right but as others have said it's naturally occuring and most likely will balance out at the end of the day but to tax us out of it for everything is a joke and that's my main arguement because as we all know, once taxes are in there there to stay.

djpbarry

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

My estimate is that the natural part is about two-thirds of the total, but that's based on what has happened in natural warming cycles in the past. It could easily be anywhere from 50-50 to 90-10 natural, I think the IPCC has over-estimated the percentages of the warming that come from greenhouse gases directly.

I’d be interested in hearing how you arrived at those conclusions.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I think our human efforts to change the climate will be doomed to futility…
…
We are not forced to keep the rising waters in the oceans either, conceivably we could spend large amounts of money and desalinate large amounts of it, then irrigate desert regions.

So attempting to control our CO2 emissions is futile, but “terraforming” deserts is entirely feasible?

gone soon

conceited wrote: »

I'M GOING TO FINE YOU ONE CARBON CREDIT, PAY FOR IT AT THE POST OFFICE.:
Or send a postal order to al gores company.
Global warming my arse.In the 1300's it was alot warmer than it is today.It's the earths natural cycle.
As was said Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland in the 1300's i suppose that was because of them there cars....:eek:

I hadn't given any opinion on the matter, just questioned the validity of your link. I have no problem with your opinion, and actually would be on your side of the debate if there was enough data out there to support it.

Found a good site recently which gave details of Finnish research into tree rings and relating them to climate, it made for interesting reading.

djpbarry

conceited wrote: »

Global warming my arse.In the 1300's it was alot warmer than it is today.

Was it indeed :rolleyes:. And I suppose you'd be happy enough to use a map dating from the 1300's to navigate the globe?

conceited wrote: »

As was said Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland in the 1300's...

So?