Jump to content
Richard_

The science is in and its now global cooling :-)

Recommended Posts

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Based on the "science" of global warming this CANNOT happen. But global warming is from scientists who can't predict the weather in a week, let alone 50 years from now

But there will be believers who will argue these facts because they believe 100% and never let the facts get in the way of a good story :-)

Careful what you believe, especially when the politicians can fix it with A TAX

And now we can worry about something else :-)

Edited by Richard_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called climate change.

Global warming was based on the first primitive models 2 decades ago.

How can you claim to be up to date with the latest "science" and have missed that detail?

Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.

‘Antarctic ice is growing’–Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook | Grist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems more to me like Daily mail is having a go at BBC - it's typical media garbage trying to cause controversy which unfortunately gets them publicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming was based on the first primitive models 2 decades ago.

How can you claim to be up to date with the latest "science" and have missed that detail?

You make me laugh Donny, "primitive models from 2 decades ago". I suppose todays models will be primitive in another 2 decades as well & up to date science will have different answers again. How could you have missed that detail?. Goneselfs opposite article finishes with, (Overall, Meier said, all of the dynamics in Antarctica—from wind to temperature to weather—makes it difficult to ferret out the facts.) Scientists are far from unified in their beleifs on climate. Get over it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i reckon those ice pirates that shoot the "bergs" with small bolt action rifles might have made a decent dint into the ice cap,

i hope that they're harvests were taken into consideration when these statistics were posted hahaha

WHAT A SHOW, action packed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Scientists are unsure as to exactly what effect we are having and exactly how big of an impact. But there is very little disagreement that humans are definitely affecting the climate. We are either speeding up a natural cycle or completely disrupting the natural cycle and throwing something new in to the works. People latch onto the slight disagreement and claim the whole idea is wrong. Its sound and repeatably provable that humans as a whole are impacting the climate, possible irreversibly. Again we can't be sure if it is irreversible. The only way to find out is to remove all the CO2, CH4, NOx and everything else we've pumped into the atmosphere and wait and see if it bounces back or reaches a new equilibrium.

But all this is like two mechanics disagreeing on how to fix the air conditioner, either way its still broken..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Climate Scientists are unsure as to exactly what effect we are having and exactly how big of an impact. But there is very little disagreement that humans are definitely affecting the climate. We are either speeding up a natural cycle or completely disrupting the natural cycle and throwing something new in to the works. People latch onto the slight disagreement and claim the whole idea is wrong. Its sound and repeatably provable that humans as a whole are impacting the climate, possible irreversibly. Again we can't be sure if it is irreversible. The only way to find out is to remove all the CO2, CH4, NOx and everything else we've pumped into the atmosphere and wait and see if it bounces back or reaches a new equilibrium.

But all this is like two mechanics disagreeing on how to fix the air conditioner, either way its still broken..

i don't think anyone disagrees that we are making an impact, the question is, how much?. Don't suppose we could just get a new air conditioner eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't think anyone disagrees that we are making an impact, the question is, how much?. Don't suppose we could just get a new air conditioner eh.

I remember you disagreeing and saying its all part of a natural cycle, or its volcanos, or its the sun.

Its humans man!

lol

Which is a shame as its easier to change the sun, than humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter how much of an impact though.. If after only 200 odd years an impact big enough to be noticed has occurred then its not quite a small impact.

The way I see it. Our emissions will only increase exponentially with 9 billion people on the planet and unless something EXTREME happens I doubt that will change. If we start doing something now, like moving to renewable energy. (Fusion... its only 50 years away guys... Or the currently more feasible Solar or Donny's favorite, Geothermal (which is ultimately nuclear energy :P)) We can at least have a start on fixing things. It may not affect us so much, we may be lucky. We may not even find a solution within our life times but if small patches are the best we can do for now.. Its better than nothing.

Most natural things are exponential so if we've only made a small impact now it could become a much bigger impact in another 50 years time. So two compounding exponential growth it cannot end well.

Any impact is an impact, If we want things to stay as they are (which I assume most do) then we want no impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember you disagreeing and saying its all part of a natural cycle, or its volcanos, or its the sun.

Its humans man!

lol

Which is a shame as its easier to change the sun, than humans

I don't remember disagreeing, iv'e always thought it's a natural cycle but i do believe we are not helping. Do you conveniantly forget i said a greener future can only be a good thing?

Did anyone ever see South Parks global warming episode based on the movie The Day After Tommorow which was crap by the way. It gave me a good chuckle & recommend you dig it up & take a look. Heres a small sample. The whole town is bunkered down in the school thinking climate change has suddenly arrived & Randy is explaining how it will affect America, meanwhile it's a beautiful day outside. South Park Clip-Two days before the day after tomorrow - YouTube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its called climate change.

Global warming was based on the first primitive models 2 decades ago.

How can you claim to be up to date with the latest "science" and have missed that detail?

‘Antarctic ice is growing’–Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook | Grist

Um..... am I sensing everyone just a little confused by "Arctic" verses "Antarctic" here??

The OP was talking about the arctic (think north pole.. northern hemisphere). The arctic ice sheet melts and reforms each year - it's a seasonal occurrence - and patterns have shown the sheet to be slowly receding until this year - whereby there was an unexpected turn of events and a massive ice sheet was formed.

But then....

Gonself then posted some seemingly unrelated post re the Antarctic (think south pole.. other side of the world... southern hemisphere) from 6 months ago. The article even states the arctic ice is receding because it was written before this newest occurrence even happened! Then cue Donny leaping in with some other stuff re the antarctic, and a snappy comment about the OP not being up with the latest science.........

Wow. Just wow.

There may be a related process going on in the arctic similar what is described in the Antarctic re local cooling, but given this occurrence with the arctic has only JUST HAPPENED and scientists are still working on why and what it all means, I hardly think you can make that a forgone conclusion and claim someone is unscientific for suggesting otherwise. The heart of science is considering all the data before making conclusions INCLUDING the data that may go against your hypothesis. Clearly this new occurrence doesn't fit with the expected process most scientists modelled for the arctic re global warming, I personally don't see it as enough evidence to state yep, global cooling, lets kick back and pollute at will.... but it is interesting, and goes to show we don't have everything figured out yet. Personally I find that an exciting prospect - more science to do!! (Yes, I sound like GLaDOS).

As a scientist what I do STRONGLY object to is the weird "no this is all definitely global warming no further discussion or you are unscientific" vibe I'm getting... ignoring the data that doesn't support your conclusion and refusing to question or re-examine your hypothesis is just as bad as making an assumption about global warming being wrong because of a singular event like the arctic ice growing.

Donny, either you have misread arctic and gotten it confused with Antarctic, or you think that an occurrence that happens at one end of the globe can be instantly assumed to be the same as something occurring miles away. If the former is the case maybe you need to read posts a little more carefully before making judgements about other people, and if the latter is the case then maybe you need to tell every scientist and researcher in the world they are basically out of a job because you can just infer things about any new or interesting phenomenon based on information you googled.. no need to test hypothesis or undertake studies. Either way you should think twice before suggesting someone else is showing a lack of scientific merit.

Trying to ignore the politics: global warming or global cooling, both are "climate change" - we live in a changing climate on an evolving planet: this is news to no one. Less pollution and being mindful of our responsibilities to the other creatures on this planet is usually a good thing, and worth doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I merely posted the same answer I always do when people claim the ice is increasing.

The arctic is funny though, we have all these new shipping lanes opening up due to shrinking ice cover............. but its growing?

Climate change is more complicated than people want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um..... am I sensing everyone just a little confused by "Arctic" verses "Antarctic" here??

The OP was talking about the arctic (think north pole.. northern hemisphere). The arctic ice sheet melts and reforms each year - it's a seasonal occurrence - and patterns have shown the sheet to be slowly receding until this year - whereby there was an unexpected turn of events and a massive ice sheet was formed.

But then....

Gonself then posted some seemingly unrelated post re the Antarctic (think south pole.. other side of the world... southern hemisphere) from 6 months ago. The article even states the arctic ice is receding because it was written before this newest occurrence even happened! Then cue Donny leaping in with some other stuff re the antarctic, and a snappy comment about the OP not being up with the latest science.........

Wow. Just wow.

There may be a related process going on in the arctic similar what is described in the Antarctic re local cooling, but given this occurrence with the arctic has only JUST HAPPENED and scientists are still working on why and what it all means, I hardly think you can make that a forgone conclusion and claim someone is unscientific for suggesting otherwise. The heart of science is considering all the data before making conclusions INCLUDING the data that may go against your hypothesis. Clearly this new occurrence doesn't fit with the expected process most scientists modelled for the arctic re global warming, I personally don't see it as enough evidence to state yep, global cooling, lets kick back and pollute at will.... but it is interesting, and goes to show we don't have everything figured out yet. Personally I find that an exciting prospect - more science to do!! (Yes, I sound like GLaDOS).

As a scientist what I do STRONGLY object to is the weird "no this is all definitely global warming no further discussion or you are unscientific" vibe I'm getting... ignoring the data that doesn't support your conclusion and refusing to question or re-examine your hypothesis is just as bad as making an assumption about global warming being wrong because of a singular event like the arctic ice growing.

Donny, either you have misread arctic and gotten it confused with Antarctic, or you think that an occurrence that happens at one end of the globe can be instantly assumed to be the same as something occurring miles away. If the former is the case maybe you need to read posts a little more carefully before making judgements about other people, and if the latter is the case then maybe you need to tell every scientist and researcher in the world they are basically out of a job because you can just infer things about any new or interesting phenomenon based on information you googled.. no need to test hypothesis or undertake studies. Either way you should think twice before suggesting someone else is showing a lack of scientific merit.

Trying to ignore the politics: global warming or global cooling, both are "climate change" - we live in a changing climate on an evolving planet: this is news to no one. Less pollution and being mindful of our responsibilities to the other creatures on this planet is usually a good thing, and worth doing.

How could Donny have missed that detail :pound:. I picked up on it but didn't have a clue there was a difference really. Sacrilicous, if you are a scientist I welcome you to this thread. Now go get those alarmists & tell them what for. :dance:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacrilicious, the title of the thread states 'its global cooling'- why would you be getting your panties in a bunch that I posted something relevant to the antarctic? They're on the same globe, last I checked.

Edited by goneself
Not needed. Sorry kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:pop2:

Sacrilicious, the title of the thread states 'its global cooling'- why would you be getting your panties in a bunch that I posted something relevant to the antarctic? They're on the same globe, last I checked.

:pop2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacrilicous, do not feel obliged to answer my call but as you are a scientist wether it be pro or anti climate or even indifferent I believe your views carry some weight & should be respected. I have two questions for you so I'll jump straight in.

In your opinion,

1- Do you believe the media has a bias alarmist approach to climate change?

2- Do you believe in the carbon tax & why it's good/bad?

If you agree to give us your opinion feel free to pull out of the thread & don't look back lol. I couldn't blame you for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arctic ice sheet melts and reforms each year - it's a seasonal occurrence - and patterns have shown the sheet to be slowly receding until this year - whereby there was an unexpected turn of events and a massive ice sheet was formed.

Lets get a few facts into the discussion. The images below show the Arctic sea ice situation as of the 8th September. There has indeed been quite a bit less ice melt this year than last year, but it is still almost 2 standard deviations less than the average ice extent for this time of year taken from 1981 to 2010. To say a massive ice sheet formed is a bit (may a lot) of an exaggeration. Moreover it should be noted that this ice extent, taken from satellite data, indicate where there is 20% coverage of ice or more and that this year there has been significant area of the Arctic covered with patchy ice rather than 100% coverage. In fact there is a large area of around 150 sq km of open water close to the North Pole at 87°N - a far larger area of open water than has ever been seen before so far north. So while this year has a larger area covered with ice than last year, it still reflects the continuing downward trend in ice coverage that has been observed for around 40 years - a decline that averages out at around 10% decrease each decade.

People continually make the mistake of confusing weather and climate. Variations from year to year can be far greater than the long term changes over decades that climate change is showing. The fact that there is more ice this year means nothing - if there was more ice this decade than the last decade then perhaps it might start to show something had affected global warming. However the science behind man's influence on the Earth's climate is so solid that is unlikely to happen.

cheers,

Mike (who was a scientist, and has the geology Ph.D to prove it!)

PS - anyonew who believes anything published in the Daily Mail obviously doesn't know anything about the British press - they make the Sydney Daily Telegraph look positively scholarly.

64vn.jpg

tckv.jpg

Edited by avinet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely put Mike :)

Before I get into anything else, I want it on the record that I wasn't raising an objection to the idea of climate change and/or climate science. Although you tempt me to disclose them, Pale Ale, I think my personal opinions are largely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

What I was objecting to is the tone of the thread, particularly where a fundamental error has been made about the topic being discussed. This has nothing to do with the specifics of the outcome one way or another - but with the purity of the discussion. To turn around and attempt to use unrelated data from the other side of the world to summarily dismiss someone isn't taking one side in the debate or another - it's destroying the idea of a discussion (any discussion!) by letting misinformation rule the day.

There may be any number of reasons why the arctic ice sheets have increased this season as Mike points out - but the events in the Antarctic region are not necessarily the same, or if they are doubtless that will be the later conclusion of some form of scientific study.

Even if you THINK there is a correlation between the arctic and Antarctic (which I don't think you can prove based on the article you posted Donny), proper science (as you would know as a "lab tech") would require you (or someone) to draw that correlation by reference to data. I'm not saying you HAVE to do this, but I am saying that if you intend to drop it into the conversation, say "Q.E.D." and tell someone they are being less than scientific then you need to take steps to support your argument. It offends me when people move away from the facts to try and support ANY position dogmatically, whether I agree with it or not. It's bad science, and bad conversation.

I think if you believe in a scientific theory - any theory - you should be prepared to accept all data and find a rationale that fits your theory, or be prepared to dismiss your hypothesis in search of a new one. That is the heart of science. Dismissing someone as being unscientific because they question a hypothesis based on an anomaly is just plain wrong. It undermines scientific discussion. Mike has in fact neatly demonstrated this: he took the time to discuss facts/data to support what he thinks, and to explain why he thinks the OP's posted article is wrong. If you're going to take issue with it, you should do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, two scientists in the same forum, thread even, am I the only one that feels a little privileged here. You never get to talk with these guys. Sacrilicious & Avinet, thanks for your sobering input in this thread even though a few egos got bruised I think it was for the greater good as far as this place goes.:esmile:. I need to give you guys some advice though, reading through your posts they seem very formal & stiff, you guys need to hang in here more often with us lower IQs & loosen up a bit, spill the beans on your thoughts on the Carbon Tax & Kyoto & just kidding. :fish:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...