Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:37 PM
 
3,902 posts, read 5,127,316 times
Reputation: 5149

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
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.
The problem would be massive flooding. It would also alter the ocean's salinity and currents and throw all kinds of things out of whack.

Here's an article that goes into more detail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2012, 02:40 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,228 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Is that you Al?
Zzzzzz. This is your argument? Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 04:07 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
So we are supposed to wait until all the ice is gone before we decide there's a problem?
I never said any such thing

How is it a problem if it is within the normal range? Deciding there is a problem is one thing - the ability to do something about it is another. But why decide that there is a problem if the % change in the average is within that long term range?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 04:17 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,228 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
I never said any such thing

How is it a problem if it is within the normal range? Deciding there is a problem is one thing - the ability to do something about it is another. But why decide that there is a problem if the % change in the average is within that long term range?
Where did you point out what the "normal range" is? I must have missed it. This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record, slightly higher than the 2008 maximum (15.24 million square kilometers or 5.88 million square miles) Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record.

What's more, old arctic ice is becoming very rare.

ClimateWatch Magazine » Old Ice Becoming Rare in Arctic

Quote:
In the mid-1980s, the winter sea ice pack in the Arctic was dominated by multi-year ice—ice that had survived at least one summer melt. Today, less than half of the sea ice at winter maximum has survived at least one summer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 04:44 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Where did you point out what the "normal range" is? I must have missed it. This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record, slightly higher than the 2008 maximum (15.24 million square kilometers or 5.88 million square miles) Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record.

What's more, old arctic ice is becoming very rare.

ClimateWatch Magazine » Old Ice Becoming Rare in Arctic
That was my point - we do not have a long term record to determine 'normal' or 'not normal.' Until then we can not say there is a problem let alone a problem that is something we can stop. And even with the change, being such a low % deviation from the average (less than 5%), over the known satelite record is something that should not be considered a 'Problem.' IMHO. I am humble on the issue so I am really just asking questions and throwing some thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 05:33 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,228 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
That was my point - we do not have a long term record to determine 'normal' or 'not normal.' Until then we can not say there is a problem let alone a problem that is something we can stop. And even with the change, being such a low % deviation from the average (less than 5%), over the known satelite record is something that should not be considered a 'Problem.' IMHO. I am humble on the issue so I am really just asking questions and throwing some thoughts.
Did you go to the web site and watch the video? Obviously there is a problem. Your 5% deviation from your average (which you've yet to define) is ignoring the fact that most of the old ice has disappeared, and that the new ice is much less prone to become long term ice, and so more easily melts. It also ignores the time scale of the deviation. Try extrapolating that deviation over the next 30 years. Also, the fact that the milankovich cycles indicate we should be heading towards an ice age but are instead, seeing global warming speaks volumes to the fact that what is happening is highly unusual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: So. Cal
277 posts, read 624,991 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
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.
You can measure all you want but you still don't get to decide what the average temperature or what the Arctic ice extent gets to be. Thermometers were not that accurate 400 hundred years ago( no one could record temps to a .1 of a degree) and the people reading them fudge numbers all the time. Newer temperature sensors are more accurate and can be recorded automatically but many sensors are not even sited properly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
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.
You're missing the point. Who is to say the amount of ice in the Arctic 400 years ago was a better number compared to what we have now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
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.
So, trees can't move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
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?
No, pay for your own self. Living in California I see large scale migration right now, so what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
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.

Seriously, are you assuming I would want to irrigate without removing the salt? We have desalinization technology today, if we would build some nuclear power plants we could generate the large amounts of electricity we would need to run the desalinization plants, we could also charge lots of electric cars if you want. And please don't tell me how we would have to get rid of massive amounts of nuclear waste because we know how to build plants that use the fuel far more completely than what we are doing now.

You may also want to check your population numbers or are you trying to say the leftover 1 billion people are good for the planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:48 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Did you go to the web site and watch the video? Obviously there is a problem.
Yes, I finally did. There is obviously 'change' from what they think is 'normal' - which is what exactly? But that is different than a 'problem' - unless you mean a probelm for the modern lifestyle we have created, but not necessarily the planet. If they have not taken a look at a long term pattern you can not say what is 'normal' or not. The article only mentions the previous starting point as the 'mid 1980s.'

Quote:
Your 5% deviation from your average (which you've yet to define) is ignoring the fact that most of the old ice has disappeared, and that the new ice is much less prone to become long term ice, and so more easily melts. It also ignores the time scale of the deviation. Try extrapolating that deviation over the next 30 years.
The average should not be defined precisely because no long term measurments have been done. The 5% was using the chart that another person posted. That 5% was being offered as an indication of a problem when it was measuring 2012 against 1989-2000. The average being higher during the 26 years than 2012. I thought that was weak evidence for an alarming position.

The old ice verses new ice change is interesting but as I stated without a long term approach we do not know if this is just the way the climate cookie crumbles .

Quote:
Also, the fact that the milankovich cycles indicate we should be heading towards an ice age but are instead, seeing global warming speaks volumes to the fact that what is happening is highly unusual.
Can you clarify why? And is it unusal for the last 30 years or the last 3,000?

From the article: '...it’s common for sea ice to linger for many years at high latitudes, growing thicker and stronger, which makes it more likely to survive the summer melt. Or at least, it used to be common.'

But this is the question - 'common' or 'unusual' according to what period and standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 05:05 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,228 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Yes, I finally did. There is obviously 'change' from what they think is 'normal' - which is what exactly? But that is different than a 'problem' - unless you mean a probelm for the modern lifestyle we have created, but not necessarily the planet. If they have not taken a look at a long term pattern you can not say what is 'normal' or not. The article only mentions the previous starting point as the 'mid 1980s.'
I think it is a problem both for our lifestyle and for the planet. Surely you don't think that melting arctic permafrost and arctic ocean ice over millions of acres have no effect on the rest of the planet. As far as what is normal, that would be the average over the time that measurements have been taken. It is true that before satellites, we did not have mountains of data on what the Arctic was doing. But that is not the same as having no data. We do have reliable data from prior to satellite coverage; and when you compare that data with the more precise satellite data, the trend of rapid ice loss is very clear.


Quote:
Can you clarify why? And is it unusal for the last 30 years or the last 3,000?
Why what? Why are we not heading for an ice age as the milankovich cycles suggest we should be heading for, or why it is unsual?

Quote:
From the article: '...it’s common for sea ice to linger for many years at high latitudes, growing thicker and stronger, which makes it more likely to survive the summer melt. Or at least, it used to be common.'

But this is the question - 'common' or 'unusual' according to what period and standard.
According to the data we have. All of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2012, 02:39 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
I think it is a problem both for our lifestyle and for the planet. Surely you don't think that melting arctic permafrost and arctic ocean ice over millions of acres have no effect on the rest of the planet. As far as what is normal, that would be the average over the time that measurements have been taken. It is true that before satellites, we did not have mountains of data on what the Arctic was doing. But that is not the same as having no data. We do have reliable data from prior to satellite coverage; and when you compare that data with the more precise satellite data, the trend of rapid ice loss is very clear.
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.

Quote:
Why what? Why are we not heading for an ice age as the milankovich cycles suggest we should be heading for, or why it is unsual
Unusual. I thought I made that clear - sorry!

Quote:
According to the data we have. All of it.
And that is the problem - see 1st paragraph.
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 $104,000 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.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top