Arctic ice cap 'could go within 60 years' - Page 5

**Julie** · 12-08-2006, 21:44 PM

Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.

Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.

dalem · 12-09-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.

Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.

So why don't you tell us the growth rate of the summer polar ice cap before 1979?

-dale

omon · 12-09-2006, 19:55 PM

i'd love to see what's under all that ice, you say 60 years..uh hope i live that long.

bonehead · 12-09-2006, 23:32 PM

Water. Lots and lots of water.

**Julie** · 12-10-2006, 00:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

Water. Lots and lots of water.

We're bumping some threads to keep them active....help me out here.

Correct, lots and lots of water...is that a good thing?

**Parihaka** · 12-10-2006, 01:38 AM

tens of thousands of Russian refugees landing on Canadian soil in rusty old boats. Damn right it'll be a good thing...

**Julie** · 12-10-2006, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

tens of thousands of Russian refugees landing on Canadian soil in rusty old boats. Damn right it'll be a good thing...

LMAO ....

bonehead · 12-10-2006, 15:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

We're bumping some threads to keep them active....help me out here.

Correct, lots and lots of water...is that a good thing?

Oh Yeah. A bunch of nuclear subs that can no longer hide under the polar ice cap. Picture three nervous deer hiding under the only tree left standing in the middle of a clearcut.

The titanic will be safe from any more icebergs. Is that good enough for ya.

dalem · 12-10-2006, 16:24 PM

So Julie - how about that ice advance rate prior to 1979?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279j.html

Quote:

"In the Arctic, the 18 glaciers with the longest observation histories were examined in 1997.72 More than 80 percent of them had lost mass since the end of the Little Ice Age. Surprisingly, however, there’s no evidence the Arctic glaciers have shrunk faster during the CO2-enriched 20th century. In fact, the researchers say the glaciers have been losing less mass per year as time goes by.73 The Arctic glaciers thus tell us their region is not currently warming. The glaciers retreated during the Medieval Warming for “at least a few centuries before 1200,” and then advanced three times during the Little Ice Age: the early 15th century, the middle 17th century and the last half of the 19th century."

-dale

**Julie** · 12-11-2006, 00:52 AM

It doesn't explain the increase in the CO2. In physics, that would have to be a contributing factor that is not being factored in. It also doesn't explain why the entire planet (not just the North Atlantic region) is warming, which was not the case during the observed "1500-year" variations.

dalem · 12-11-2006, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

It doesn't explain the increase in the CO2. In physics, that would have to be a contributing factor that is not being factored in. It also doesn't explain why the entire planet (not just the North Atlantic region) is warming, which was not the case during the observed "1500-year" variations.

CO2 is only important in this discussion if you can prove it has an effect on global temperature. And that hasn't happened yet.

And who else was measuring temps over the last 500 years other than Europeans? If you look at global data that we think is accurate it shows a global drop in temp at the same time the sun went through a period of relatively low activity.

-dale

**Julie** · 12-11-2006, 11:28 AM

I read this for hours last night, and find the 1500 year climate cycle inarguable, and we will endure warmer temperature the next 200 years.

Okay, say we go with that, and totally ignore the extreme rise in C02 the last 50 years or so, because we assume it has no effect in climate change.

What if in the next century, we find it does have an effect, to the extent that it throws off the proven 1500 year climate cycle?

What is arguable is that the 1500 year climate cycle does not take into account the industrial age of this century and its effects thereof, and by the time you do have the data that can prove it, the damage could be irreversible.

With that said, are you willing to risk the earth's environment by not taking any preventive measures, just in case the climate cycle could possibly become uncycled due to high atmosphere emissions?

dalem · 12-11-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

I read this for hours last night, and find the 1500 year climate cycle inarguable, and we will endure warmer temperature the next 200 years.

Okay, say we go with that, and totally ignore the extreme rise in C02 the last 50 years or so, because we assume it has no effect in climate change.

What if in the next century, we find it does have an effect, to the extent that it throws off the proven 1500 year climate cycle?

What is arguable is that the 1500 year climate cycle does not take into account the industrial age of this century and its effects thereof, and by the time you do have the data that can prove it, the damage could be irreversible.

With that said, are you willing to risk the earth's environment by not taking any preventive measures, just in case the climate cycle could possibly become uncycled due to high atmosphere emissions?

Julie, there is no real difference between telling me that we're making the planet warmer now without proof and telling me we're GOING TO make the planet warmer later without proof. "What if?"s at that scale don't really concern me.

The real point to me has always been that the planet is going to be warmer or cooler than it is now no matter what anyone does, burns, or recycles, and we'd better learn how to live with that.

-dale

**Julie** · 12-11-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

"What if?"s at that scale don't really concern me.
-dale

Well it should.....that is my point.

I think it unfair that you can take available data from 1500 years ago to prove a cycle, but not take into consideration extreme changes in atmospheric conditions that would not reflect in data for future years to come.

That's like saying....well, we have to wait another 1,500 years to prove it, but we may not be able to prove it then, because we may be living in a water world.

dalem · 12-11-2006, 14:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Well it should.....that is my point.

I think it unfair that you can take available data from 1500 years ago to prove a cycle, but not take into consideration extreme changes in atmospheric conditions that would not reflect in data for future years to come.

That's like saying....well, we have to wait another 1,500 years to prove it, but we may not be able to prove it then, because we may be living in a water world.

Fairness is irrelevant. What is relevant is the scientific method.

And in 1500 years we may be living in a dry, cold, sub-arctic world. That "maybe" is just as likely as yours.

-dale

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
Christians besieged in Pakistan	Tronic	International Politics	26	06-06-2007 23:51 PM
The lost 20 years of CIA spies caught in China trap	Ray	Political Discussions	8	04-22-2007 10:23 AM
Pakistan extends quota system for another 20 years	Ray	Political Discussions	6	10-22-2004 20:29 PM

12-08-2006, 21:44 PM	#61 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,340 Country:	Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces. The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century. Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.

12-09-2006, 19:55 PM	#63 (permalink)
omon Field mechanik *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-01-06 Location: bk Posts: 1,925 Country:	i'd love to see what's under all that ice, you say 60 years..uh hope i live that long.

12-09-2006, 23:32 PM	#64 (permalink)
bonehead *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-12-05 Posts: 1,913	Water. Lots and lots of water.

12-10-2006, 01:38 AM	#66 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,465 Country:	tens of thousands of Russian refugees landing on Canadian soil in rusty old boats. Damn right it'll be a good thing...

12-11-2006, 00:52 AM	#70 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,340 Country:	It doesn't explain the increase in the CO2. In physics, that would have to be a contributing factor that is not being factored in. It also doesn't explain why the entire planet (not just the North Atlantic region) is warming, which was not the case during the observed "1500-year" variations.

12-11-2006, 11:28 AM	#72 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,340 Country:	I read this for hours last night, and find the 1500 year climate cycle inarguable, and we will endure warmer temperature the next 200 years. Okay, say we go with that, and totally ignore the extreme rise in C02 the last 50 years or so, because we assume it has no effect in climate change. What if in the next century, we find it does have an effect, to the extent that it throws off the proven 1500 year climate cycle? What is arguable is that the 1500 year climate cycle does not take into account the industrial age of this century and its effects thereof, and by the time you do have the data that can prove it, the damage could be irreversible. With that said, are you willing to risk the earth's environment by not taking any preventive measures, just in case the climate cycle could possibly become uncycled due to high atmosphere emissions?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)