vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Hunter - 09/14/2013
:re:
About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.
Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A chart published Sept. 8 by NSIDC shows the dramatic rise this year, putting total ice cover within two standard deviations of the 30-year average.
Noting the year over year surge, one scientist even argued that "global cooling" was here.
Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/#ixzz2euP4tRlr[/url]
About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.
Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A chart published Sept. 8 by NSIDC shows the dramatic rise this year, putting total ice cover within two standard deviations of the 30-year average.
Noting the year over year surge, one scientist even argued that "global cooling" was here.
Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/#ixzz2euP4tRlr[/url]
2.) DParker - 09/14/2013
While it's true that Global Warming/Climate Change/whater-they're-calling-it-this-week is severely overhyped and the alarmists have been wrong on nearly every specific prediction they've made (including an ice-free Arctic by 2013), I wouldn't cite this one-year jump in ice cover as compelling evidence of anything. Year-to-year deviations from a trend are normal, and the long-term trend for Arctic ice cover is still downward. And although the increase was dramatic as a percentage, the previous year's coverage was so low that the increase naturally seems more dramatic as a % of record lows.
Given the nearly two decades of no increase in atmospheric temps the downward trend in ice cover could well reverse itself. But a single year of recovery doesn't mean much of anything.
Given the nearly two decades of no increase in atmospheric temps the downward trend in ice cover could well reverse itself. But a single year of recovery doesn't mean much of anything.
3.) Alex - 09/15/2013
I dont have time dig too many of the links but I wouldnt get excited about the 'increase' in ice.
[COLOR=#222222]
It's just bad representation of statistics.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][COLOR=#000000]Record Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 60% in a Year.” That is grossly misleading, making it seem as if the sea ice is coming back. It isn’t. The sea ice grows and recedes with the seasons every year and has been on the decline since spring … and the overall trend over time is [/COLOR][I]definitely[/I][COLOR=#000000] downward.[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=verdana]Incidentally, sea ice extent is interesting, but it's not the best way to look at this. More important is the sea ice [I]volume[/I], which tells you the thickness. Ice can cover a lot of area, but if it’s thin, that’s not good; it melts more readily in the summer. Right now, [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html"]the trend for sea ice volume is down[/URL]. Way down.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=#000000][FONT=verdana]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]As ice thins, it is prone to movement and 'expansion' by wind and wave action. The illusion is that there is "more ice" when in reality the thinner ice is more prone to seasonal melting.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]In addition to this there is the expansion of ice down-water from glacial melt. As larger and larger amounts of freshwater from snow melt change the salinity of sea water, it raises the temperature needed for freezing. Once again, this give the appearance of an increase in ice but those only come at a greater increase of ice loss which created the freshwater injection. Similarly, that new ice is prone to quick seasonal melting and is far less resilient than true multi-year ice. This is what is being seen in Antarctica .[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]There is one small benefit (albeit seasonal only) - increased ice 'coverage' and you increase surface reflection (albedo) and decrease seawater heat absorption. Unfortunately this increase only happens during times when solar heat gain is at it's minimum anyway and during the summer months when it is most needed, the thin ice is of little to no help. This means the overall absorption is DRAMATICALLY weighted on the side of heat gain and not heat loss.[/COLOR]
The numbers are still globally on the rise temperature wise, ice is still on the decline with last winter showing record loss of ice mass (lowest recordings to date) and extreme weather events (like Colorado's 500-1000 yr flood - same with Eastern Russia) are still on the rise in the Northern Hemi due to the loss of jet stream strength.
Global warming doesnt mean its ALWAYS warm. In fact arctic warming is directly repsonsible for the extreme cold events we have seen the past few years in the East Coast US and Europe.
This ride is ONLY getting started I am afraid.
My new sig....
"Hope doesn't float in desalinized water".
[COLOR=#222222]
It's just bad representation of statistics.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][COLOR=#000000]Record Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 60% in a Year.” That is grossly misleading, making it seem as if the sea ice is coming back. It isn’t. The sea ice grows and recedes with the seasons every year and has been on the decline since spring … and the overall trend over time is [/COLOR][I]definitely[/I][COLOR=#000000] downward.[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=verdana]Incidentally, sea ice extent is interesting, but it's not the best way to look at this. More important is the sea ice [I]volume[/I], which tells you the thickness. Ice can cover a lot of area, but if it’s thin, that’s not good; it melts more readily in the summer. Right now, [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html"]the trend for sea ice volume is down[/URL]. Way down.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=#000000][FONT=verdana]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]As ice thins, it is prone to movement and 'expansion' by wind and wave action. The illusion is that there is "more ice" when in reality the thinner ice is more prone to seasonal melting.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]In addition to this there is the expansion of ice down-water from glacial melt. As larger and larger amounts of freshwater from snow melt change the salinity of sea water, it raises the temperature needed for freezing. Once again, this give the appearance of an increase in ice but those only come at a greater increase of ice loss which created the freshwater injection. Similarly, that new ice is prone to quick seasonal melting and is far less resilient than true multi-year ice. This is what is being seen in Antarctica .[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#222222]There is one small benefit (albeit seasonal only) - increased ice 'coverage' and you increase surface reflection (albedo) and decrease seawater heat absorption. Unfortunately this increase only happens during times when solar heat gain is at it's minimum anyway and during the summer months when it is most needed, the thin ice is of little to no help. This means the overall absorption is DRAMATICALLY weighted on the side of heat gain and not heat loss.[/COLOR]
The numbers are still globally on the rise temperature wise, ice is still on the decline with last winter showing record loss of ice mass (lowest recordings to date) and extreme weather events (like Colorado's 500-1000 yr flood - same with Eastern Russia) are still on the rise in the Northern Hemi due to the loss of jet stream strength.
Global warming doesnt mean its ALWAYS warm. In fact arctic warming is directly repsonsible for the extreme cold events we have seen the past few years in the East Coast US and Europe.
This ride is ONLY getting started I am afraid.
My new sig....
"Hope doesn't float in desalinized water".
4.) crookedeye - 09/15/2013
Al Gore was right after all.. hmmm all these years i thought he was a nut case..
5.) Floyd - 09/15/2013
[QUOTE=crookedeye;10760]Al Gore was right after all.. hmmm all these years i thought he was a nut case..[/QUOTE]
Of course he is. He invented the internet. They put nothing on the internet that isn't true.
Of course he is. He invented the internet. They put nothing on the internet that isn't true.
6.) DParker - 09/15/2013
[QUOTE=Floyd;10769]Of course he is. He invented the internet. They put nothing on the internet that isn't true.[/QUOTE]
Bonjour!
Don't panic. Al Gore is still full of crap.
Bonjour!
Don't panic. Al Gore is still full of crap.
7.) Alex - 09/16/2013
Gore was and still is a Politician, NOT a scientist.
He was right... sure.. but in what?
He was right in trusting the scientists who were ahead of the curve back then in predicting what was coming. But lets face it... he was just a politician betting on his horse.
And the fat lady is just getting warmed up.
He was right... sure.. but in what?
He was right in trusting the scientists who were ahead of the curve back then in predicting what was coming. But lets face it... he was just a politician betting on his horse.
And the fat lady is just getting warmed up.
8.) Floyd - 09/16/2013
Who would like to see California slide into the ocean before the Galactic Lottery Reset Button is hit?
Just a little tongue and cheek.
Let's take a Poll. Most likely scenario for human extinction or removal from Earth.
Oh, and my favorite; how many millions of years before earthlings will be giant cockroaches caring for earth? I know Crookedeye can answer this question.
Just a little tongue and cheek.
Let's take a Poll. Most likely scenario for human extinction or removal from Earth.
Oh, and my favorite; how many millions of years before earthlings will be giant cockroaches caring for earth? I know Crookedeye can answer this question.
9.) DParker - 09/16/2013
My practical side says a virus or other microorganism. But my whimsical side is holding out hope for some sort of scenario that results in a beer and hot wings apocalypse. I'm still working on the details of that one though.
10.) Go Bucks - 09/16/2013
The argument isnt heating or cooling.. its whether the fluctuations are manmade or natural
11.) Alex - 09/16/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;10777]The argument isnt heating or cooling.. its whether the fluctuations are manmade or natural[/QUOTE]
I'll give you a hint and I believe I am 1oo% accurate on this.
It's Both!
I know I know... that was too easy because the real argument is to what degree each plays a part.
But while the passengers sit around arguing whether it was the iceberg or the bridge's fault, the ship splits and sinks.
But man's propensity for argument is a act of nature all in itself.
Was just reading a new report out this morning with analysis of temps over a new time frame.
One thing is for certain... it's a tragedy that our children and especially their children wont have the same type of world we enjoyed.
I'll give you a hint and I believe I am 1oo% accurate on this.
It's Both!
I know I know... that was too easy because the real argument is to what degree each plays a part.
But while the passengers sit around arguing whether it was the iceberg or the bridge's fault, the ship splits and sinks.
But man's propensity for argument is a act of nature all in itself.
Was just reading a new report out this morning with analysis of temps over a new time frame.
One thing is for certain... it's a tragedy that our children and especially their children wont have the same type of world we enjoyed.
12.) DParker - 09/16/2013
[QUOTE=Alex;10778]I'll give you a hint and I believe I am 1oo% accurate on this.
It's Both!
I know I know... that was too easy because the real argument is to what degree each plays a part.
But while the passengers sit around arguing whether it was the iceberg or the bridge's fault, the ship splits and sinks.
But man's propensity for argument is a act of nature all in itself.[/quote]
But in this case the argument is both justified and necessary. The ultimate question is, "What, if anything, can/should we do about it?"...and that cannot be effectively addressed until you know what is actually happening, and the causes behind it.
[QUOTE=Alex;10778]Was just reading a new report out this morning with analysis of temps over a new time frame.
[/quote]
The 30-year period from 1961-1990 seems like a quite tiny and rather arbitrary choice of data points for long-term climate analysis. What is the point of comparisons with that time frame?
[QUOTE=Alex;10778]One thing is for certain... it's a tragedy that our children and especially their children wont have the same type of world we enjoyed.[/QUOTE]
They never do.
It's Both!
I know I know... that was too easy because the real argument is to what degree each plays a part.
But while the passengers sit around arguing whether it was the iceberg or the bridge's fault, the ship splits and sinks.
But man's propensity for argument is a act of nature all in itself.[/quote]
But in this case the argument is both justified and necessary. The ultimate question is, "What, if anything, can/should we do about it?"...and that cannot be effectively addressed until you know what is actually happening, and the causes behind it.
[QUOTE=Alex;10778]Was just reading a new report out this morning with analysis of temps over a new time frame.
[/quote]The 30-year period from 1961-1990 seems like a quite tiny and rather arbitrary choice of data points for long-term climate analysis. What is the point of comparisons with that time frame?
[QUOTE=Alex;10778]One thing is for certain... it's a tragedy that our children and especially their children wont have the same type of world we enjoyed.[/QUOTE]
They never do.
13.) DParker - 09/16/2013
What this thread really needs is some beaver anal gland secretions....er, I mean...natural vanilla substitute...
[url]http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/food/index/article/-/18950492/Would-you-like-some-beaver-butt-with-that-castoreum-sweden-vanilla/[/url]
[url]http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/food/index/article/-/18950492/Would-you-like-some-beaver-butt-with-that-castoreum-sweden-vanilla/[/url]
14.) Alex - 09/16/2013
The charts represent a blending of the 2 most prominent models to date.
The 1961-1990 is reference specifically as a statistical anomaly because of the departure from the trend.
The whole article can be found here.
[url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/[/url]
The 1961-1990 is reference specifically as a statistical anomaly because of the departure from the trend.
The whole article can be found here.
[url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/[/url]