What is Gore high on? I want some!

[Wild Cobra]

Really, what type of whacky weed is he smoking?

Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/14/science-climate-gore_7210056.html)


I already saw something in the Cryosphere (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=05&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=05&sy=2009) site. If I compare an early September date of 1979 vs. 2009, there is a definite receding of the ice. However, the thickness of the 2009 ice is far thicker in the middle, supporting the theory of melting from Black Carbon falling near Alaska and Russia.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2009-1979-09-05arcticice.jpg

Look how much thicker the center of the ice is in 2009 vs. than 1979 even though there is less surface ice.

Then there is another inconvenient fact that Gore must not know about:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3061/arcticbathymetric.png

Notice that the ice rarely melts over the area that is deep ocean. Only over the shallower waters. This indicates that water temperature rather than air temperature has a greater influence on the bounds of the melting.

I don't thing we will ever come close to a complete arctic melt.

Opinions?

[SouthernFried]

Gore's disciples need only faith.

Might as well talk religion...you'll get as much accomplished.

[Nbadan]

Or...


"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/14/science-climate-gore_7210056.html)

In the summer months...not September...common now, you live up north...by end of July summer's over north of Denver...also..the thicker ice shifts, so it may seem denser, because it is, it is compacting...

[MannyIsGod]

Really, what type of whacky weed is he smoking?

Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/14/science-climate-gore_7210056.html)


I already saw something in the Cryosphere (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=05&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=05&sy=2009) site. If I compare an early September date of 1979 vs. 2009, there is a definite receding of the ice. However, the thickness of the 2009 ice is far thicker in the middle, supporting the theory of melting from Black Carbon falling near Alaska and Russia.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2009-1979-09-05arcticice.jpg

Look how much thicker the center of the ice is in 2009 vs. than 1979 even though there is less surface ice.

Then there is another inconvenient fact that Gore must not know about:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3061/arcticbathymetric.png

Notice that the ice rarely melts over the area that is deep ocean. Only over the shallower waters. This indicates that water temperature rather than air temperature has a greater influence on the bounds of the melting.

I don't thing we will ever come close to a complete arctic melt.

Opinions?

You do realize that water tempature being more of a cause is not a detraction from the idea that artic sea ice will be gone soon, right? The oceans are warming - at a slower rate due to a much larger volume but warming none the less - just as the atmosphere is. They're not arguing that the atmosphere is warming, they're arguing that the Earth is warming.

I don't see how any thing you just posted somehow contradicts the idea that the sea ice will be gone soon.

[Winehole23]

C'mon Manny. It's a valid opinion. WC thinks we'll never get close.

[Winehole23]

Be sure and get a no bs definition of *close* before you put up any v-dollars.

[boutons_deux]

There's 10s of Ms at risk in the Andes due to glaciers melting much faster than predicted, same true in Himalayas.

WC is shill for the oil/gas/coal industry, and he doesn't even know it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

sorta like you're a shill for the global warming crowd, but too stupid to realize that they don't give a shit about the world - just getting rich off of the cause.

Damn you're retarded, crutons.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ask anyone who has a feasible interest in that area for oil exploration, as if they give a shit as long they make a quick buck at the expense of ppl.....

[Jacob1983]

What Al Gore and his followers say if in 10 to 20 years, the ice still hasn't melted and it's not as bad as he scared people into believing it was?

[Nbadan]

Don't go there...they probably think there's another Iraq under the North Pole ice....

[whottt]

Does anyone have an explanation on why the ice is thicker now though? That seems to me to be a fairly important fact.

I am not really that interested in this argument, as I figure the planet is going to solve the problem for us...period. Plus it wasn't that long ago scientists predicted an iceage is imminent...and I know they say, sometimes, this is something similar or part of it, but still, most of the stuff I have read says the GW is already a done deal.

Plus, I do know our orbit changes and at some point, there will be another ice age. Period.

But I am interested in why that ice would be thicker...that actually could mean this is at least partially due to the point the Earth is at on the solar plane.

[Wild Cobra]

Or...


Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/14/science-climate-gore_7210056.html)

In the summer months...not September...common now, you live up north...by end of July summer's over north of Denver...also..the thicker ice shifts, so it may seem denser, because it is, it is compacting...
LOL...
Dan, I am going by satellite imagery. You apparently missed my correlation with the thickness of the remaining ice for the same day of a different year. The ice starts receding about on the sporing equinox, and starts rebuilding just before the fall equinox. The only reason I chose 9/5 was it is the lowest sea ice area.

Look at any year, the trend remains. Play with the viewer and see yourself:

Viewer: The Cryosphere Today
Compare Daily Sea Ice (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh)

Graph showing 9/5 as the lowest sea ice area:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize that water tempature being more of a cause is not a detraction from the idea that artic sea ice will be gone soon, right? The oceans are warming - at a slower rate due to a much larger volume but warming none the less - just as the atmosphere is. They're not arguing that the atmosphere is warming, they're arguing that the Earth is warming.

I don't see how any thing you just posted somehow contradicts the idea that the sea ice will be gone soon.
Well, I agree the sea waters are rising in temperature. It is however very minimal. Consider, if we attribute the 20 cm (8") rise in sea water over the last 100 years to thermal expansion, that is still a very small increase in temperature to increase the average sea height by 0.0056%.

I'm not going to look the numbers up again, but the 20 cm is 0.0056%. I remember that. I simply forget how much of a temperature increase it takes to do that.

[Wild Cobra]

They're not arguing that the atmosphere is warming, they're arguing that the Earth is warming.

When they stop talking about 65N Insolation, I will concur with that statement.

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone have an explanation on why the ice is thicker now though? That seems to me to be a fairly important fact.

I see it as extremely important, and why I brought it up. You see, Greenland still has approximately the same ice as well. The center of Greenland's ice pack is thicker. My theory is that it causes the glaciers to flow faster from the extra mass. Gravity will have it's way. Now flowing faster, it doesn't have the same amount of time to heal and remain intact as it changes shape, therefor, it breaks up easier. Here are a couple links to consider:

NASA puts its weight behind warming signs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11745704/)

Please note the accompanying image of Greenland has the mountain ice gaining in thickness as the ice fronm the glaciers near the sea declines. The net ice volume is changed insignificantly:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060310/greenland_icesheet.widec.jpg

This 2006 article confirms warming as seen by ice reduction of the Antarctic. I believe since, there have been signs of the opposite, but that's not the point.

Impact of Climate Warming on Polar Ice Sheets Confirmed (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html)

Statement of interest:

In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.

I know I saw more recent news about Antarctica gaining ice as well, Things are simply cyclical.


Plus, I do know our orbit changes and at some point, there will be another ice age. Period.

Yes, but when. We are entering the low eccentricity point in the earths orbit that controls the total solar annual irradiance. A 400,000 years cycle. The earth will get the most solar heat in another 26,000 years before it starts cooling again.


But I am interested in why that ice would be thicker...that actually could mean this is at least partially due to the point the Earth is at on the solar plane.

Even though we have had slight warming, it causes more precipitation. That precipitation causes the ice packs to be denser. Snow and ice reflect most the radiation they receive. Exposed sea water absorbs most the radiation it receives. That's why I laugh at scientists using 65N insolation. They have it backwards. That works for land estimations because most the land is in the northern hemisphere, but not for the total energy the earth receives, because most the water is in the southern hemisphere. I continue to say it's not climatologists to listen to, but all disciplines of the earth sciences. Climatologists limit their view to a few parts of the science. They largely don't understand the ocean sciences. If we are to talk of global changes, then we must consider all things global.

[boutons_deux]

Glaciers in southern China receding rapidly


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-china-glacier15-2009dec15,0,1222275.story

In Bolivia, Water and Ice Tell of Climate Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/science/earth/14bolivia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=glacier&st=cse


etc, etc, etc in the overwhelming mountain of evidence of global warming, except if you're a shill for oil/gas/coal warming-deniers' conspiracy.

[DarrinS]

To believe the melting ice is something catastrophic, you'd have to show that this is somehow unusual or unprecedented. Unfortunately, there are no sattelite images during the little ice age (LIA) or medieval warm period (MWP). In lieu of actual temperature measurements, climate scientists have used proxies (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) to reconstruct temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. Their techniques for reconstructing the global temperature anomaly of the past 1000 years has come under tremendous scrutiny in the last few years, particularly the so-called "hockey stick" graph, by Mann et. al.


Here's a graphic that once appeared in an IPCC report, showing both the MWP and the LIA.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4175600324_8ec42a74ce_o.jpg


By comparison, here's Mann's "hockey stick", which appeared numerous times in the most recent IPCC reports and was also a star in Al Gore's sci-fi horror flick, An Inconvenient Truth. Notice that the MWP has vanished.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4175600322_12ce1570bb_o.jpg


The hockey stick has been debunked by Canadian researchers McIntyre and McKitrick. There is a very nice blog by IowaHawk (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html#more) that explains in detail how to make your own "hockey stick" with a simple spreadsheet.



To me, one of the most damning statements I've read in the East Anglia emails is by Keith Briffa, a climate scientists who's proxy reconstrution trended downwards and thus didn't conform to the hockey team model. His proxies are the ones referred to by fellow scientists when they say "hide the decline".

"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple."

Read the above statement carefully and really think about what it means.

[DarrinS]

People may also be interested in this site --> http://www.surfacestations.org/

[TeyshaBlue]

Glaciers in southern China receding rapidly


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-china-glacier15-2009dec15,0,1222275.story

In Bolivia, Water and Ice Tell of Climate Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/science/earth/14bolivia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=glacier&st=cse


etc, etc, etc in the overwhelming mountain of evidence of global warming, except if you're a shill for oil/gas/coal warming-deniers' conspiracy.

ROFL....boutons...the poster child of non sequiturs.:lol

[EmptyMan]

He's high on all that green...money that is...from all of these dumbfucks lining his pockets.

[boutons_deux]

There's tons of evidence over decades and 100s of years of global warming.

Climategate, a fabricated scandal created by paying to have computers criminally broken into, is just more smokescreen and mindless noise for the Vast Oil/Coal/Gas Warming Denier Conspiracy.

[Crookshanks]

Like most of what Algore says - this is a complete lie. The scientist he cited said he doesn't know where Algore got that conclusion because it's just not true.

The High Priest of the Church of Global Climate Change is a liar and a fraud.

[DarrinS]

There's tons of evidence over decades and 100s of years of global warming.

Climategate, a fabricated scandal created by paying to have computers criminally broken into, is just more smokescreen and mindless noise for the Vast Oil/Coal/Gas Warming Denier Conspiracy.



Psst. Hey, dumbfuck. 100s of years? Really?


The whole thing is suppposed to be based on human industrial activity.


Want to rethink your position?

[boutons_deux]

go back 200 years (2 is a plural) and check the rise in atmospheric CO2 since burning of coal and oil became industrialized.

[DarrinS]

go back 200 years (2 is a plural) and check the rise in atmospheric CO2 since burning of coal and oil became industrialized.


Yep. Most was from 1900-present.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/co2_emission_1800_2000.png

[Wild Cobra]

go back 200 years (2 is a plural) and check the rise in atmospheric CO2 since burning of coal and oil became industrialized.

There you go, assuming CO2 causes the degree of warming we see.

When will you libtards stop listening to propaganda?

[InRareForm]

boutons so naive :lol

[boutons_deux]

Climate Change in Hawaii: Caught Between a Rock and a Big Wave

http://www.truthout.org/1215093?print

[boutons_deux]

Global warming in UNDENIABLE

Anthropogenic warming is EXTREMELY PLAUSIBLE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg

Not that any of you oil/coal/gas/VRWC corporate shills would let FACTS puncture your FANTASIES.

I have to congratulate you, though. Many of The Great American People, dumbed down by corporate TV and distracted by junk culture, ie, ideal brain-softened targets of your demagoguery, now doubt both global warming and evolution.

You are to be congratulated for making The Great American People the laughing stock of the planet, added to the hate and distrust the planet has now for how The Great American People know how to run their economy and capitalism.

[DarrinS]

Global warming in UNDENIABLE

Anthropogenic warming is EXTREMELY PLAUSIBLE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg

Not that any of you oil/coal/gas/VRWC corporate shills would let FACTS puncture your FANTASIES.

I have to congratulate you, though. Many of The Great American People, dumbed down by corporate TV and distracted by junk culture, ie, ideal brain-softened targets of your demagoguery, now doubt both global warming and evolution.

You are to be congratulated for making The Great American People the laughing stock of the planet, added to the hate and distrust the planet has now for how The Great American People know how to run their economy and capitalism.



"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple."

-Keith Briffa

[boutons_deux]

"not quite so simple."

so, it's complicated to present proxy data about global warming because the data and climate are extremely complicated. That one sentence doesn't negate global warming.

[Wild Cobra]

"not quite so simple."

so, it's complicated to present proxy data about global warming because the data and climate are extremely complicated. That one sentence doesn't negate global warming.
Nobody denies the earth has warmed. We have only disagree with what to attribute the warming to. Now all current data points to a cooling period, of unknown duration. We had a record cold the other day of 16F, breaking a 70's record of 17F.

[Nbadan]

pfff...

gF2SdPkC22c

[Nbadan]

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise


UN secretariat initial draft shows gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of CO2 between present pledges and cuts required to limit rise to 2C

The emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian.

With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.

A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world's biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse.

The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow. .............(more)

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c)

q71cMRGXx9o

[boutons_deux]

"We had a record cold the other day of 16F"

I remember a prediction that global warming would increase weather instability, in BOTH directions.

Stick your short-term anecdote when your sun spots don't shine.

Global cooling is causing record melts of Greenland, glaciers, and both poles. Repug logic, up is down, black is white, greed is good.

Conservatives, spinnning fantasies and lies non-stop, are simply wrong on the facts and policy, EVERY time, as the deregulation, absent-govt financial depression proves yet again.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

The world blazes a carbon trail to Copenhagen to watch Obama throw a hissy fit while China tells him to fuck himself. Who knew this president would be such a failure?

Oh yeah, those of us who didn't vote for him.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

The world blazes a carbon trail to Copenhagen to watch Obama throw a hissy fit while China tells him to fuck himself. Who knew this president would be such a failure?It has ever been my curse to be accepting of ideas and skeptical of people. Even though I agree with the judgment the bolded probably (I can't read minds) signifies, I do not share the bookended schadenfreude (ROFL) that seems to delight in our country's misfortunes.

BTW, would you mind posting a link for the hissy fit you referenced? I'm feeling like a nap.

[Winehole23]

The President has already failed his campaign imago (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/IMAGO) dismally, and around his neck he carries the bailout, the deficit, the prosecution of two very iffy wars and a health care reform bill that from the beginning was more a costly giveaway to special interests than a reform of health care cost or quality.

[Yonivore]

It has ever been my curse to be accepting of ideas and skeptical of people. Even though I agree with the judgment the bolded probably (I can't read minds) signifies, I do not share the bookended schadenfreude (ROFL) that seems to delight in our country's misfortunes.
Obama's failure to implement his socialist agenda is not this country's misfortune, I assure you.


BTW, would you mind posting a link for the hissy fit you referenced? I'm feeling like a nap.
Went back to Drudge and the link was gone. He titled it "Anger" and the lead paragraph talked about how angry was Obama and how the Chinese walked out on some meeting...

If I come across it again, I'll post the link. My bad.

[Winehole23]

Obama's failure to implement his socialist agenda is not this country's misfortune, I assure you.I thought he had already destroyed America, or was just about to. My bad.

[Yonivore]

I thought he had already destroyed America, or was just about to. My bad.
It's not over...unfortunately, this guy's in office for another 3+ years. Hopefully, he'll lose his complicit Congress next November.

[boutons_deux]

socialism = VRWC red herring (aka outright lie)

[Yonivore]

socialism = VRWC red herring (aka outright lie)
D'okie dokie. The VRWC is swaying opinion...so, call it what you will. I don't care so long as this "centrist" president we have doesn't get his agenda implemented.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, it's been 5 years for the September low points and ice is larger that alarmists predictions.

Any of you think the Arctic will be ice free in 2 more years?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Shazbot, you make me laugh. Do you always let an activist blog tell you how to respond?

Look at the trend of the last few years:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20ech o%20time%28%29%20?

Also note, that chart ends 1/31/14.

Here is a better source:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html)

Please note, several recent years have more ice loss than 2014. The trend is "recovering." I never implied "recovered."

I am asking if anyone thinks that in 2 more years if the arctic will be free of ice, as claimed.