Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Tell me what the maximum ice extent was in 1682, how about 1345 or maybe a billion years ago.
Or better yet what was it in 1978? That data only goes back to 1979 as it was first year they had satellites to accurately gather it. Prior to that it would require observations which of course come no where near the amount of data or accuracy of satellite imagery.
That doesn't mean anything, you still don't get to decide, how arrogant of you
to think you decide what the proper ice extent of the arctic or average temperature of the planet should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
We know from shipping logs back then that the extent was much more than it is today.
We did not have the same ability to assess the average ice extent back then as we do today, shipping logs are trumped by satelites. The ability to accurately measure ice extent has been unavailable until recently. Also even if ice extent was greater in 1682( I believe that it was probably cooler than) it doesn't mean that was the better overall number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Since people didn't exist a billion years ago, since the poles were in a different geographical position than they are today, and since the sun was warmer then than now, that question is irrelevant.
No it is relevent, we don't get to decide what is best for the planet, we adapt
to the conditions or die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Actually Canada does mind, since the lengthened growing seasons will be offset by massive increases in the insect population and thawing of the permafrost, which will release vast amaounts of methane, a much more potent GHG than CO2, setting off a positive warming feedback that will only make things much worse. And for the record, nowhere is global warming being felt more than in the Arctic, which includes much of canada.
It is quite arrogant to assume that this only impacts you. Clue - You are not the sum total of the Earth's biosphere.
No, the point is that we can handle large variations in temperature, if it gets colder we can move south, if it gets hotter we can move north. With all the water on this planet we can irrigate land if we have droughts, you don't seem to have much faith in mankinds ability to adapt to conditions but we must because despite what you think, we have very little control of the earths climate. The way some of you people try and look at such a small window of time and make great pronouncements about the future climate reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
04-13-2012, 03:05 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse276
I didn't see any data sources in that article. I found this... it seems ice is below average this year.
I do not think you should compare an average over a 21 year period with a one year average esp. when the difference is less than 5% in one region. Also, note that in 2007 the average was lower than 2012 so from that year till now it is increasing in this region. This is almost not worth dicussing. Does anyone have anything to say about what constitutes an abnormal deviation of the average range of sea ice over a long period of time? Over a long period of time, say 500 years, the range of sea ice could be 10-16 million square kilometers, for example. If so, a less than 5% difference from some shorter period of time that is still within that range, say from 14 million to 13.5, would be saying absolutely nothing about 'abnoraml Climate Change.' Unitil then do not sweat it.
That doesn't mean anything, you still don't get to decide, how arrogant of you
to think you decide what the proper ice extent of the arctic or average temperature of the planet should be.
The point, dude, is that scientists, based on satellite and ship measurements, and worldwide thermometer readings, get to decide because we are the ones collecting the data and writing the reports. If that upsets your or makes us arrogant, then I suggest you get out in the field and collect some data. Otherwise, I don't care what you think.
Quote:
We did not have the same ability to assess the average ice extent back then as we do today, shipping logs are trumped by satelites.
This is true. However, ships' logs are still very useful for a number of climate measurements, including temperature readings, and the presence or absence of ice at particular latitudes.
Quote:
The ability to accurately measure ice extent has been unavailable until recently. Also even if ice extent was greater in 1682( I believe that it was probably cooler than) it doesn't mean that was the better overall number.
You are missing the point. Even in 1682, there werre quite a few ships out there plugging the seas. Ice was a serious hazard, and was widely reported when it was found. And the fact is that ice was encountered in shipping lanes 400 years ago where it is never encountered today.
Quote:
No it is relevent, we don't get to decide what is best for the planet, we adapt to the conditions or die.
Yes, I'm sure all the trees of the world that can't just pick themselves up and move, are feeling peachy keen about that idea.
Quote:
No, the point is that we can handle large variations in temperature, if it gets colder we can move south, if it gets hotter we can move north.
And you are going to pay for my move are you? And what about the people who already live in the areas you think we should move to? Do you think they are going to just wlecome us with open arms?
Quote:
With all the water on this planet we can irrigate land if we have droughts, you don't seem to have much faith in mankinds ability to adapt to conditions but we must because despite what you think, we have very little control of the earths climate.
Since 97% of the water on this planet is salt water, and since nearly all of our food crops require fresh water, what food crops are you planning to grow with all this salt water? And despite what you may have been led to believe, 6 billion humans are having a devastating effect on this planet. From urbanization, deforestation, soil, water, and air pollution, to greenhouse gas build up in the atmosphere, all occurring in unprecedented scale and rapidity, we are, in fact, detrimentally controlling the near and mid-term fate of the Earth's climate. And we can damn-well change our habits, damn well better do so if we care about our children and their childrens' future.
I do not think you should compare an average over a 21 year period with a one year average esp. when the difference is less than 5% in one region. Also, note that in 2007 the average was lower than 2012 so from that year till now it is increasing in this region. This is almost not worth dicussing. Does anyone have anything to say about what constitutes an abnormal deviation of the average range of sea ice over a long period of time? Over a long period of time, say 500 years, the range of sea ice could be 10-16 million square kilometers, for example. If so, a less than 5% difference from some shorter period of time that is still within that range, say from 14 million to 13.5, would be saying absolutely nothing about 'abnoraml Climate Change.' Unitil then do not sweat it.
So we are supposed to wait until all the ice is gone before we decide there's a problem?
Gleaning information from all the arguments (Feels like I missed a good chance there - you all know me - an argument a day keeps the neighbors at bay) I think I see that the quantity of ice this year, globally, is higher than "normal" and that the arctic has a larger amount than "normal".
What's going on in the Antarctic? Is the Ross ice shelf about to plummet into the ocean?
Than it should be? Who are you to decide what it should be?
Tell me what the maximum ice extent was in 1682, how about 1345 or maybe a billion years ago.
Warming will lengthen the growing seasons in colder areas that have short growing seasons now, I am sure Canada wouldn't mind. If warmer weather is so detrimental to life than how the hell am I still alive after leaving Minnesota and moving to California? The average temperature difference from where I used to live in northern Minnesota and where I live now is huge and yet I feel fine.
Overall the planet has been considerably warmer with a much higher CO2 atmospheric content than it is today. However, a warmer planet does not necessarily mean a longer growing season. The amount of sunlight plays an important role in determining when plants having their growing and reproductive cycles. Many plants, for example, will continue to grow as long as they continue to receive more than 12 hours of light. Only when the amount of light drops below 12 hours per day will they begin their reproductive cycle.
The long summer days allows northern latitudes (above 60°N) to grow larger than normal plants, but the short winter days means those plants must grow and reproduce quickly.
Additionally, while new areas will be opened up for farming, other areas will become unsuitable for farming. There may be a slight increase or reduction in the amount of arable land, but for the most part it will not change by much.
So we are supposed to wait until all the ice is gone before we decide there's a problem?
Why would that be a problem? Throughout most of Earth's history the planet has been ice-free, and it was not a problem then. It has only been in the last 40 million or so years that there has been ice at the poles.
Why would that be a problem? Throughout most of Earth's history the planet has been ice-free, and it was not a problem then.
On what do you base this claim? I've seen nothing in the geologic recrod to indicate that this is true.
Quote:
It has only been in the last 40 million or so years that there has been ice at the poles.
Well now, this is complete nonsense, unless you are referring to the current geographic poles. But dude, the geographic poles have wandered throughout Earth's history. There have been polar ice caps in many locations. In the last 200 million years alone a total true polar wander of some 30° has occurred, accompanied by polar ice caps. In addition, over at least the past 500 million years, the continents have moved in and out of the polar regions. Then there was the snowball Earth prior to the Cambrian explosion.Throughout ALL of Earth's history, you cannot show where a polar ice cap melted in 150 years, nor can you show where rapid ice cap melting due to rapid global warming was beneficial to life. Secondly, throughout most of Earth's history, there weren't 6 billion human beings dependent on a stable climate for their survival.
Moreover, yes there have been many times when the Earth had no ice caps at all. But I challenge you to show us when any of them melted completely over the course of 150 years. And make no mistake, the North polar ice cap will be gone within the next 30 years. Greenland will be next. And finally, the3re is plenty of documented evidence to show that global warming not only will negatively impact the planet's ecology, but that it is already doing so. And these impact can only bring hardship and liely even war to the human sphere. IS this what you want to leave for your children and their children to have to deal with?
Last edited by orogenicman; 04-13-2012 at 01:49 PM..
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
