Enjoy an Ads-Free ASFN - lighter and faster too! Become an ASFN-Contributor and help support the site.
Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion

Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.


Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 12th, 2007, 07:32 AM   #1
ajcardfan
I see you.
 
ajcardfan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 14,795
A$FN: 180,000

Scientists fear Arctic thaw has reached "tipping point"


Scientists fear Arctic thaw has reached 'tipping point'
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
Dec. 12, 2007 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by the Associated Press.

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.


Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst-case scenarios?

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now, as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming. For the past several days, government diplomats in Bali, Indonesia have been debating the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases.

What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea-level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.

In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the non-profit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.

More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.

"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."

Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted - something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades - it could add more than 22 feet to the world's sea level.

However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice-sheet melt has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.

According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but it was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.

"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now, I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer than the past year?"

Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are quite likely entering a new regime."

Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become part of a troubling spiral. White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more melting.

"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models predicted."

NASA's James Hansen, who is called the "Godfather of Global Warming," on Thursday is expected to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.

"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time, but it is going to require a quick turn in direction."

Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and Marika Holland at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few decades. Both say they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.

T.H. Huxley
ajcardfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 08:57 AM   #2
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajcardfan View Post
What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea-level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.


NASA's James Hansen, who is called the "Godfather of Global Warming," on Thursday is expected to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.

"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time, but it is going to require a quick turn in direction."

.

The first quote annoys me because it's worded really poorly so that it gives the wrong impression. Melting sea ice LOWERS the sealevel it does not make it rise. it's very clear if you read the whole article that the scientists know that and are very careful to make the distinction between sea ice and ice on land(which does raise the sealevel when it melts), but the people who wrote the article apparently don't get the distinction.

The second one who is this Hansen guy I swear I was told he's not that big of a factor in this whole thing?

the other part here is I posted this awhile ago there's another study by NASA (where this Hansen guy works) that clear contradicts the claim in this study that it's caused by Global Warming. This study concludes it's caused by a reversal in ocean currents called the arctic oscillation, a completely NATURAL event that we have no control over.

Here's one link to that.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1113-nasa.html
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:26 AM   #3
ajcardfan
I see you.
 
ajcardfan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 14,795
A$FN: 180,000
A quote from that study Russ:

Quote:
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.
So, he cautions against reaching the conclusion you leapt to.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.

T.H. Huxley

Last edited by ajcardfan; December 12th, 2007 at 09:29 AM.
ajcardfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:27 AM   #4
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,587
A$FN: 322,102
Hey Russ, how long have you hated polar bears? Just kidding.

Hey, can we trust NASA to be nonpartisan? Just wondering.
Mulli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:47 AM   #5
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajcardfan View Post
A quote from that study Russ:



So, he cautions against reaching the conclusion you leapt to.
Of course he does he basically said yes it's caused by the decadal oscillation but we believe global warming is making that worse or will in the future. Note, they didn't give any evidence for that beyond a climate model prediction.

the ice melting is bad, and it contributes to warming, but if it's melting mainly because the current reversed, for it to be manmade we have to show that's what reversed the current. We can't use a computer model prediction of the future as proof of something happening today.

The study I posted a few weeks ago said they believe the current reversal is close to running its course. So if theyr'e right, it will start cooling again and the sea ice melt will slow.
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:49 AM   #6
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulli View Post
Hey Russ, how long have you hated polar bears? Just kidding.

Hey, can we trust NASA to be nonpartisan? Just wondering.
Nasa is totally non partisan on this you have 2 studies with entirely different conclusions both conducted by people who work for NASA.
That's one of the things Hansen complains about regularly he wants NASA to come out and take a unified stance, it's real, we're causing it, he doesn't want people on NASA's payroll to publish studies that contradict that.
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:50 AM   #7
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,587
A$FN: 322,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith View Post
Nasa is totally non partisan on this you have 2 studies with entirely different conclusions both conducted by people who work for NASA.
That's one of the things Hansen complains about regularly he wants NASA to come out and take a unified stance, it's real, we're causing it, he doesn't want people on NASA's payroll to publish studies that contradict that.
Thanks.
Mulli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:53 AM   #8
ajcardfan
I see you.
 
ajcardfan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 14,795
A$FN: 180,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith View Post
Of course he does he basically said yes it's caused by the decadal oscillation but we believe global warming is making that worse or will in the future. Note, they didn't give any evidence for that beyond a climate model prediction.

the ice melting is bad, and it contributes to warming, but if it's melting mainly because the current reversed, for it to be manmade we have to show that's what reversed the current. We can't use a computer model prediction of the future as proof of something happening today.

The study I posted a few weeks ago said they believe the current reversal is close to running its course. So if theyr'e right, it will start cooling again and the sea ice melt will slow.
What else would they use to make a prediction?


What are they using to make that prediction? It's a model.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.

T.H. Huxley
ajcardfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 10:51 AM   #9
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajcardfan View Post
What else would they use to make a prediction?


What are they using to make that prediction? It's a model.
My point is the article very clearly states manmade warming is causing this ice to melt. The study you cited talks about the decadal oscillation, which is NOT manmade, but rather than say that's a natural effect maybe the ice melt is too, they simply used a model to forecast the future, saw the oscilllation increase in the prediction, and then backtracked to say warming is causing the current that's melting the ice.

They might be right but they're using a forecast of the future to determine a cause in the present that started in the past. It's right out of Terminator.
It's very circular reasoning IMHO.
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 10:56 AM   #10
nidan
The Terminator
 
nidan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 15,312
A$FN: 12,489
It sounds to me Russ like they aren't entirely sure yet and are saying so.

Maybe you whipping boy doesn't like that I don't know but it sounds like the scientific process is working in that other credible possibilities are being examined.

If think one point here might be that if the bad version is correct we need to listen hard. If the less bad version is correct we won't know until the results are obvious [ie no sea ice]

I guess my concern is that many prefer to latch onto the possibility of no problem here simply to avoid having to do anything. By the time we KNOW it will be vastly hard to fix
__________________


DogTv
nidan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 11:22 AM   #11
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
For Mulli on polar bears.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132220.stm

They found a jawbone of one that they think is 10-30 million years older than they believed polar bears to be. If true, it means polar bears already survived an "interglacial event".

Means they might not be headed for extinction afterall.
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 11:26 AM   #12
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,587
A$FN: 322,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Smith View Post
For Mulli on polar bears.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132220.stm

They found a jawbone of one that they think is 10-30 million years older than they believed polar bears to be. If true, it means polar bears already survived an "interglacial event".

Means they might not be headed for extinction afterall.
Rock on Ursus maritimus.
Mulli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 11:28 AM   #13
Russ Smith
The Original Whizzinator
 
Russ Smith's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 29,078
A$FN: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan View Post
It sounds to me Russ like they aren't entirely sure yet and are saying so.

Maybe you whipping boy doesn't like that I don't know but it sounds like the scientific process is working in that other credible possibilities are being examined.

If think one point here might be that if the bad version is correct we need to listen hard. If the less bad version is correct we won't know until the results are obvious [ie no sea ice]

I guess my concern is that many prefer to latch onto the possibility of no problem here simply to avoid having to do anything. By the time we KNOW it will be vastly hard to fix
Let's say the study is correct and the guy saying no sea ice by 2012 is right,
how exactly will we stop this in less than 5 years?

Part of the problem is the forecasts are so inaccurate. It used to be no sea ice by 2100 and many feet of sealevel rise. Then it was 40 years, now it's 5 years. Even if you believe the effect is accelerating and worse than before all they've shown is that they're always wrong, and each new prediction is more dire than the last one.

If on the last day of 2012 there's still a bunch of sea ice anybody think Jay Zwally will contact Seth Borenstein to have him write a new article where he admits he was wrong?
__________________
"This space available"
Russ Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 11:45 AM   #14
nidan
The Terminator
 
nidan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 15,312
A$FN: 12,489
Better yet, lets do nothing and wait and see.

Oh course by the time we see there may be all sorts of harmful side effects, but heck better to wait don't you think.

Point is Russ you may well be correct but the consequences of assuming that could be quite serious. If guess it comes down to do we do nothing or something as we will never have perfect predictions.
__________________


DogTv
nidan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 12:32 PM   #15
Heucrazy
Pretty Prince of Parties
 
Heucrazy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 5,217
A$FN: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan View Post
Better yet, lets do nothing and wait and see.

Oh course by the time we see there may be all sorts of harmful side effects, but heck better to wait don't you think.

Point is Russ you may well be correct but the consequences of assuming that could be quite serious. If guess it comes down to do we do nothing or something as we will never have perfect predictions.
And what do you propose we do about the current? Get a bunch of people out in the ocean with giant spoons?
__________________
"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Heucrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
greenhouse gases, russ smith


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37