oops climate changers are wrong again

[Lovebears65]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

 

[Lovebears65]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

 

[Redfish]

But but but but but the prophet algore said that we were all going to be boiling in sea water by now---------you mean he lied?

 

[mamooth]

Gore rule invoked. First person to invoke Al Gore forfeits the discussion for their side. Those who can discuss the science, do. That who can't rave about personalities like Gore. And you don't see anyone on the rational side talking about Gore.

 

[Decus]

Is this an inconvenient truth?:

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change""

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007

 

[Vox]

Is this an inconvenient truth?:

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change""

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007

ah, the lying greedy skunks who decided to milk our pockets?

Nobel Committee lost it's credibility very long time ago.

But 2007 and 2008 ( or was it 09) were the most ridiculous ones

 

[Pete7469]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

No surprise, liberals are always wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

Ah come on! This is about facts, it's about what feels right...

 

[onecut39]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

Using 2007 is called cherry picking a date. The following are a couple of excerpts from a very long and informative article written by those who study these things rather than those who cherry pick statistics. Read it you may learn something. Among them that the date for an ice free arctic may be only a few years off the original prediction.

".......The annual minimum extent usually occurs during the month of September and the lowest monthly average was measured in September 2007. The monthly figure was 40.8 percent below the average for the period 1979-1990......."


..."The accelerating rate of decline of ice volume may be a more accurate indicator than the rate of decline of ice extent when attempting to predict the time horizon for an ice-free Arctic Ocean....".

"........Ice volume data helps to put the recovery of sea ice extent since the 2007 minimum into perspective. Sea ice volume continues to decline rapidly and has occurred at an exponential rate since 1979........."

".......... If this trend persists over the coming years we could experience an ice free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2015............."

The Arctic Institute - Center for Circumpolar Security Studies

 

[TemplarKormac]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

It was the same thing when they got the Himalayan Glaciers wrong. In fact I think they're still there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gore rule invoked. First person to invoke Al Gore forfeits the discussion for their side. Those who can discuss the science, do. That who can't rave about personalities like Gore. And you don't see anyone on the rational side talking about Gore.

LOL, you invoking rules? How about the stupid rule?

Anyone who says anything stupid forfeits their discussion for their side. Looks like your side lost. Already.

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013

No it wasn't. That's just some cherry-picked denier cult propaganda. All of the older scientific predictions for Arctic sea ice loss expected the Arctic to be ice free in the summers much later in this century. It was only after the rate of ice loss began to far exceed those earlier predictions that scientists began saying that the summer ice might possibly disappear sometime later in this decade. Most climate science predictions are estimating some year after 2015 and many still say after 2030. Only a very few scientists have said it might be all gone by now. They all say it will happen eventually, either this decade or in the next few decades.

As far as that deceptive "60% sea ice gain since last year" hokum, that is just more lies and spin to fool the gullible, scientifically ignorant rightwingnuts.

Arctic ice extent was 4.25 million square miles in the 1950s. It's been declining in both extent and volume since 1953. Ice extent hit a record low level in 2002, with only 3.72 million sq miles at the end of the melt season. It reached new record low extents in 2005, at 2.05 m sq miles and again in 2007, at 1.63 m sq miles. In 2012 it hit a startling new record low of only 1.32 million square miles, which is 2.4 million sq miles below the extent just a decade earlier in 2002. After a record low, there almost always a rebound in area for the next several yearsand this is normal and expected. This year, due to the play of other natural factors in the Arctic climate, sea ice rebounded by about .66 million sq miles. This amount is insignificant in relation to the amount of ice cover area that has been lost in just the last ten years, not to mention since the 1950s.

As the Arctic ice cap warms and melts, it shrinks not only in extent but also in thickness, which means the total volume of ice is shrinking even faster than just the extent. The loss of ice volume has been even more severe than the loss of ice extent. This loss of ice mass or volume may possibly set a new record this year, even with the slight increase in ice extent over last year's.

Source: Polar Science Centre, University of Washington

 

[Old Rocks]

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Dr. James Hansen's paper from 1981 has some clear predictions made 32 years ago. At a time that the denialists were claiming that there was no warming at all happening.

 

[Old Rocks]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Really? One million square miles more ice? Do you purposely lie, or are you just that gullable? By this graph, less than 600,000 sq kilometers of more than in 2007. That is a lot less than 1 million sq miles.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

But we are used to the lies that the denialists spew on this subject.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

It was the same thing when they got the Himalayan Glaciers wrong. In fact I think they're still there.

My, my, another Crusader Frank mental midget.

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

Many of Asia’s glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change.

This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea-level rise.

The U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with 39 international scientists, published a report on the status of glaciers throughout all of Asia, including Russia, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.

“Of particular interest are the Himalaya, where glacier behavior impacts the quality of life of tens of millions of people,” said USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. “Glaciers in the Himalaya are a major source of fresh water and supply meltwater to all of the rivers in northern India.”

As glaciers become smaller, water runoff decreases, which is especially important during the dry season when other water sources are limited. Climate change also brings warmer temperatures and earlier water runoff from glaciers, and this combined with spring and summer rains can result in flood conditions. The overall glacier retreat and additional melt can increase the amount of water dammed in the vicinity of a glacier, and the added pressure enhances the likelihood of disastrous outburst flooding

 

[The T]

Gore rule invoked. First person to invoke Al Gore forfeits the discussion for their side. Those who can discuss the science, do. That who can't rave about personalities like Gore. And you don't see anyone on the rational side talking about Gore.

Bullsqueeze. YOU take yer rule and shove it up yer ass.

OwlGore is the leading acolyte of AGW which is FALSE science, and more bent on CONTROL.

Get it?

In short? *FUCK OFF*

 

[Old Rocks]

http://geoportal.icimod.org/Publication/Files/cf894b1a-d2df-46ca-9e7a-e0577d24ea4f.pdf


Abstract:
Since industrialization, human activities have significantly altered the atmospheric composition, leading to climate change of an unprecedented character. The global mean temperature is expected to increase
between 1.4 to 5.8ºC over the next hundred years. The consequences of this change in global climate are already being witnessed in the Himalayan glaciers and glacial lakes. The Himalayan glaciers are retreating at rates ranging from 10 to 60 metres per year and many small glaciers (<0.2 sq km) have already disappeared. Vertical shift of glaciers as great as 100m have been recorded during the last fifty years. With the result of retreating glaciers, the lakes are growing in number and size as well in the Himalaya. A remarkable example is Lake Imja Tsho in the Everest region; while this lake was virtually nonexistent in 1960, now it covers nearly 1 sq km in area. Similar observations were made in the Pho Chu basin of the Bhutan Himalaya, where the change in size of some glacial lakes has been as high as 800 per cent over the past 40 years. At present, several supraglacial ponds on the Thorthormi glacier are growing rapidly and consequently merging to form a larger lake. These lakes pose a threat of glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), and GLOFs are often catastrophic on life and property of the mountain people living downstream. At least thirty-two GLOF events recorded in Himalaya that resulted in heavy loss of human lives and their property, destruction of infrastructure besides damages to agriculture land and forests. The global warming in the coming decades will amplify the GLOF events with the accelerating retreat of glaciers and formation of many potentially dangerous glacial lakes. Monitoring of glaciers and glacial lakes are utmost important to understand the status of the lake and need to prioritized for the installation of early warning systems and mitigation measures before planning the mountain infrastructure for the sustainable development. Regional cooperation is also required for knowledge management on GLOF issues due to trans-boundary nature of GLOF phenomena.

 

[Gadawg73]

Anyone here ever heard of National Glazier Park?
IN AMERICA
100 years ago it had over 150 glaciers.
Now it has 25 and shrinking.
They will be gone in less than 30 years.

And folks claim there is no climate change.
NO ice core data ever has revealed this fast of a meltdown of glaciers, EVER.
Anyone that believes this is part of some cycle is not very swift.
The last cycle of this was over 3000 years long, and it was a quick one.
100 years is no cycle. This is real, wake up Americans.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf

Human induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
&#8220;Human activities are changing Earth&#8217;s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013


Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.