antarctic ice melt now irreversible scientists say

[GearSolidMetal]

What's the reliable source?

A buddy of mine. He was acting like it was all kept on the down-low, but with a quick search I found alot of stories on it.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/105...-saved-dirty-fossil-fuel-burning-helicopters/

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-stuck-antarctic-ice.html
This site seems like it's the most legit news source and it said it required 3 ice breaker ships to get the scientists out.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/antarctic-expedition-scientists-trapped-ice

http://theconversation.com/scientists-at-work-stuck-in-the-antarctic-ice-we-set-out-to-study-21929

 

[panamaican]

Because the ocean is gigantic and it doesn't work like that... there will be a gigantic rise in sea level, but it's going to take several decades for it to actually stabilize and rise.

From what I read it's more like hundreds of years.

So while it's "inevitable" as we see things now, it's so far out in terms of time that it's kind of weird to assume that nothing else in nature will change over that time.

 

[method115]

There are many, many factors in determining what the truth is.

The Club of Rome talked about using climate change to act as an external enemy to unite people (similar to how the war on terror works to scare people) back in the 90's. You can count on a steady stream of scare tactics because that is the formula they always use to bring about changes in societies thinking and behavior.

Also, geo engineering has been being worked on for a very long time.

Without a doubt the whole thing is political, but the only question remaining is that what is causing the climate changes and how much of it is scare tactics and how much is legit.

I've been listening a to very good podcast with Joe Rogan and some guy who studies these things and he seems to be saying the climate change is normal and that he doesn't feel we're affecting it as much as they would have us believe. He also said that temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years and this was even admitted by the head guy at IPCC.

I honestly don't know where I stand because arguments on both sides seem convincing. Also everyone agrees on climate change but no one is saying how much are other factors affecting it and how much is it natural.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I've been listening a to very good podcast with Joe Rogan and some guy who studies these things and he seems to be saying the climate change is normal and that he doesn't feel we're affecting it as much as they would have us believe. He also said that temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years and this was even admitted by the head guy at IPCC.

I honestly don't know where I stand because arguments on both sides seem convincing. Also everyone agrees on climate change but no one is saying how much are other factors affecting it and how much is it natural.

Climate change is normal. What is not normal is the rate with which it is occurring. That is driven by human activity. Outside of a handful of bought and paid for experts there's not really any debate about that. There is legitimate debate about the potential magnitude of change but even the best case scenarios have some severe implications.

 

[method115]

Climate change is normal. What is not normal is the rate with which it is occurring. That is driven by human activity. Outside of a handful of bought and paid for experts there's not really any debate about that. There is legitimate debate about the potential magnitude of change but even the best case scenarios have some severe implications.

At what rate is climate change occurring? One point this guy made on the podcast was that they are using some sort of ground sensors to make these claims. The issue with that is things on the ground can cause the sensors to display misleading results. For instance if a parking lot is nearby it will draw more heat to that area causing the sensor to have higher temp readings. He said eventually another scientist realized this and did a study on the sensors and the results were that 40-50% of the sensors were displaying misleading data because of things like the parking lot causing more heat to be drawn to that particular area.

When using satellite data the temperature has remained the same for the past 17 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/

So when you say the rate at which it is occurring are you talking hundreds of years?

 

[Jack V Savage]

At what rate is climate change occurring? One point this guy made on the podcast was that they are using some sort of ground sensors to make these claims. The issue with that is things on the ground can cause the sensors to display misleading results. For instance if a parking lot is nearby it will draw more heat to that area causing the sensor to have higher temp readings.

Ugh. I see this kind of thing in my field (dumb laypeople think of some stupid point that they think just never occurred to people who actually study stuff for a living), and it's always wrong. I imagine it's a hundred times worse for people who work in a field that is under attack by ideologues.

 

[UpaLoompa]

At what rate is climate change occurring? One point this guy made on the podcast was that they are using some sort of ground sensors to make these claims. The issue with that is things on the ground can cause the sensors to display misleading results. For instance if a parking lot is nearby it will draw more heat to that area causing the sensor to have higher temp readings. He said eventually another scientist realized this and did a study on the sensors and the results were that 40-50% of the sensors were displaying misleading data because of things like the parking lot causing more heat to be drawn to that particular area.

Yeah, no.

When using satellite data the temperature has remained the same for the past 17 years.

Actually, no. If you use a particular satellite data set and start from 1997 or 1998 you will (sometimes) find that there hasn't been an increase. 97/98 was aberrant hot. Since 1998 "skeptics" have used that start date (depending on the data set) to argue erroneously that temperatures haven't changed. Importantly they don't pick 1996 or 1999 or any other year besides 97/98 because there is no other start date that lets them argue what they want to argue. (that trick doesn't work anymore by the way, what you can now do though is argue that the rate of temperature increase isn't as high as previously--for the HadCrut data. of course doing so ignores energy gains in oceans and particular atmospheric levels.

Watts, for example, makes a living data mining to find appropriate time spans over which to cherrypick data slices.

 

[method115]

Yeah, no.



Actually, no. If you use a particular satellite data set and start from 1997 or 1998 you will (sometimes) find that there hasn't been an increase. 97/98 was aberrant hot. Since 1998 "skeptics" have used that start date (depending on the data set) to argue erroneously that temperatures haven't changed. Importantly they don't pick 1996 or 1999 or any other year besides 97/98 because there is no other start date that lets them argue what they want to argue. (that trick doesn't work anymore by the way, what you can now do though is argue that the rate of temperature increase isn't as high as previously--for the HadCrut data. of course doing so ignores energy gains in oceans and particular atmospheric levels.

Watts, for example, makes a living data mining to find appropriate time spans over which to cherrypick data slices.

I'm a little confused why do you say they don't pick the year 1999? The past 17 years includes 1999.

Let me ask this way. They say from 1997-2014 satellite data is showing no temperature change. Is this true? If not can you point me to some links that describe why it's false? I'm trying to get more information on this while climate change and its not easy at all.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

You guys do know the Artic and Antartic are at opposite ends of the planet right?
That Antartica is actually a land mass?
That minimum sea ice extent is a problem in the Artic and that land ice mass is the issue in the Antartic?

'Course you do...

LOL I have seen this logic before. Put some ice in a glass of water and it will melt and the glass won't overflow.

More like fill the glass right to the top and then put some ice in there and let me know what happens.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm a little confused why do you say they don't pick the year 1999? The past 17 years includes 1999.

Yes, it is included but they don't pick it as a starting date.

Ask why they might not do so.
The answer is that when you select any other year from around 1900 to 2007 you will see a positive relationship. After about 2008 you're dealing with a narrow window and get a lot of noise. What I'm saying is that 1997 and 1998 are usually the only years people typically pick to show "no warming" because those are the only years you can show such a pattern with the most commonly used data set. Watts has done a fair bit of data mining to find some other start dates for other data sets but that's intellectually dishonest to make an argument from.

Let me ask this way. They say from 1997-2014 satellite data is showing no temperature change. Is this true? If not can you point me to some links that describe why it's false? I'm trying to get more information on this while climate change and its not easy at all.

It is "true" that for some data sets that if you pick 1997 or 1998 as a starting date you won't find a temperature change. The issue is what that means. You have to be very careful in dealing with time series data because the starting date can be very influential. For example, I can (and have posted graphs of it in this forum) choose dates within that 17 year time period and show very extreme warming, very extreme cooling, or no relationship at all. So what? That tells us very little about what's actually going on and is simply a matter of cherry picking start dates. There's a reason why that sort of cherry picking gets posted on blogs but not published: it isn't science it is agenda driven data mining.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

"Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money."

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/

 

[Ruprecht]

LOL I have seen this logic before. Put some ice in a glass of water and it will melt and the glass won't overflow.

More like fill the glass right to the top and then put some ice in there and let me know what happens.

Is that like, "ice is less dense than water, so melting the ice caps would actually drop the sea level"?
Mind boggling.

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

A bit lengthy, but, worth it.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Ugh. I see this kind of thing in my field (dumb laypeople think of some stupid point that they think just never occurred to people who actually study stuff for a living), and it's always wrong. I imagine it's a hundred times worse for people who work in a field that is under attack by ideologues.

its easy to do when you just make the assumption that the 6-8 years of higher education that the experts receive is a secret program designed by liberal elites to brainwash. or that theyre just being bought.

3 youtube videos can make you a qualified expert on truth, though.

 

[Steve Garvey]

IF you watched one of the recent rogan experience they talked about climate change. starts really getting into it at about 32 min. Very interesting

 

[trojansc82]

I'm ready. I'm hoping the 8 hours I spend in a pool each day to grow gills will give my offspring the advantage to be like Kevin Costner in Water World. My guess is Sheldon Adelson will play the part of Dennis Hopper.

 

[second sight]

http://iceagenow.info/category/glaciers-are-growing-around-the-world/

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

So if its irreversible why even bother to implement things to fix it? To say something that is cycling like the climate is irreversible seems not right to me.

 

[RIPWarrior]

"Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can

 

[TeTe]

As the population increases, so does the demand for natural resources.

Most people wont admit that the best solution to reducing man made global warming is stop having children. Its the best thing you could do for the environment.

Other than culling the herd, we've done a pretty damn good job in the US of finding greener ways of doing things over the past 40 years.