U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2012, 10:20 PM
 
15,102 posts, read 9,422,883 times
Reputation: 6733

Advertisements

Oh yeah, the ice cap is melting............

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.1475.png (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2012, 11:22 AM
 
3,486 posts, read 1,329,906 times
Reputation: 2907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Of course it has an effect that is why I said 'change' - but not a 'problem' for the planet necessarily. What is abnormal over a short period of time may be normal over a longer one - until we understand what that is, all we are doing is trying to establish some sort of subjective standard of stasis of what we think the planet should be like, at this very moment, based on a short period of measurements. Add to that the fact that we then try to politicize it. By doing so we are encourgaging error, misunderstanding, fraud, etc. because now someone has more than just a pet scientific theory to maintain.

It is similar, somewhat, to the fact that we know that 99% of species, to be known to have existed, have become exstinct yet we are trying to save the nearly exstinct ones from a similar fate and saying that this is how it should be - yet out of the same mouth we believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, and grand epochs on this planet. If we look over the long epochs of this planet nothing is 'normal' things change and sometimes rapidly. We may not have anyway to stop it. Why do we think that the planet is that static? The planet is a very dynamic place and and we may find that it does not give a crap about us and our lifestyle. It is quite arrogant, at least at this point in our technology, to think we can control the planet and it relationship to it star - to such precision - by regulations so as to maintain our wants and goals. We do not know if there is a long term cycle or if it is just going to go onto another epoch that does not favor us while on its way to it's own exstinction. Although, a case could be made that that planet has stabalized over its long history but that still would not mean that a cyclical aspect is still in play that wanes back and forth with episodes like we are seeing now.

I just want honesty in the matter, without the false political standards that say the planet is supossed to be like this or that small priod of time based on this small period of data.



Unusual. I thought I made that clear - sorry!



And that is the problem - see 1st paragraph.
The issue is that the current change is due to human GHG emissions and the rate of change is exceptional if not unique in the historical and the gelogic record. The planet has never before supported a human population in the billions and thus there is no precedent for the harm that such a rapid change will engender. Are we to usurp our alleged intellectual supremacy and moral superiority for short term monetary gain? I don't believe that putting ourselves along with other species at unnecessary risk demonstrates our intellectual or moral superiority at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 12:48 PM
 
19,536 posts, read 22,750,292 times
Reputation: 26988
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Oh yeah, the ice cap is melting............
What does the snow cover in February of one year and April of another have to do with the amount of ice in the Arctic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,440 posts, read 2,515,366 times
Reputation: 2572
If you use what the ice level was 20,000 years ago as "normal", most of the Northern Hemisphere should be covered in ice now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 02:36 PM
 
15,102 posts, read 9,422,883 times
Reputation: 6733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
What does the snow cover in February of one year and April of another have to do with the amount of ice in the Arctic?
OK, try this:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.6026.png (broken link)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.3305.png (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 02:49 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 1,329,906 times
Reputation: 2907
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 08:51 PM
 
19,536 posts, read 22,750,292 times
Reputation: 26988
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
OK, try this:
The jet stream (as mentioned earlier in this thread) spent the entire winter over Canada last winter so it dumped a ton of snow up there. Apparently it didn't in the other year you show...

Again, what does a change in snow cover have to do with it? A warm summer and it's gone...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
1,436 posts, read 1,387,199 times
Reputation: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
OK, try this:
That map is obviously bull anyway. There is no way there was no snow in northern Siberia in February 1985, unless it was some kind of VERY anomalous year. Some of the area that's in green on 1985 map has had permafrost for the last 10,000 years at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 04:47 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 1,329,906 times
Reputation: 2907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
That map is obviously bull anyway. There is no way there was no snow in northern Siberia in February 1985, unless it was some kind of VERY anomalous year. Some of the area that's in green on 1985 map has had permafrost for the last 10,000 years at least.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is snow-covered. It just means that the ground is frozen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 03:09 AM
 
23,307 posts, read 17,677,944 times
Reputation: 7652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
That map is obviously bull anyway. There is no way there was no snow in northern Siberia in February 1985, unless it was some kind of VERY anomalous year. Some of the area that's in green on 1985 map has had permafrost for the last 10,000 years at least.
It's most likely representative of seasonal snow cover, the thickness of the ice is represented by the darker purple colors which it should be noted is considerably darker this year compared to 1985.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 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 - Top