The North Pole could melt this year

[jreeves]

Natural warming trends caused by what? The sun? The scientists who study the sun say it hasn't changed enough to create the increased temperatures we are seeing.

Warming and cooling trends that have existed since the begining of the Earth.

 

[Chris]

Btw since we are on the subject of the ozone layer, you don't believe Ozone depletion has played a role in higher temperatures?


The following list provides a snapshot of companies and groups lobbying on climate change according to recent lobbying reports and filings with the U.S. Senate as of May 30, 2008. This is a partial list. The reporting of climate change on federal lobbying documents is voluntary, and many additional industries and organizations are lobbying Congress on the subject.

Air–Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute, trade association representing manufacturers of air conditioning and commercial refrigeration

Lennox International, manufacturer and servicer of heating, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment

So much for the A/C and refrigeration companies not sending lobbyist to Capitol Hill huh?

Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?

 

[Chris]

Warming and cooling trends that have existed since the begining of the Earth.

They have.

When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?

 

[jreeves]

Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?

United Technologies Corporation

Type Public (NYSE: UTX)
Founded 1929
Headquarters Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Key people Louis R. Chênevert, CEO George David, Chairman
Industry Conglomerates
Products Conglomerates
Revenue ▲ $54.759 billion USD (2007)
Net income ▲ $4.224 billion USD (2007)
Employees 222,000
Website utc.com
United Technologies Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UTX is the corporation that includes Carrier
That's not chump change by any means....

 

[jreeves]

They have.

When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?

Well in prehistoric earth....


A treasure trove of scientific data is revealing detailed information about conditions of subtropical warmth at the North Pole about 55 million years ago while also providing a window into the future, when greenhouse gases are expected to reach the same levels that caused Earth's ancient heat wave.


Researchers aboard a fleet of icebreakers collected samples by drilling into the floor of the Arctic Ocean during a 2004 expedition, and scientific findings will be published for the first time in several papers to appear Thursday (June 1) in Nature magazine.

"This project was a technological feat, and all of the findings in these papers are especially new and exciting given the fact that nobody's ever taken core samples like this before from the floor of the Arctic Ocean," said Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science. "As a climate modeler, gaining access to this data is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

The expedition was part of an international research effort called the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, which explores the Earth's history and structure as recorded in seafloor sediments and rocks.

Huber used new data from the research to compare against results from complex climate-model simulations he performed to study and predict the effects of greenhouse gases. He co-authored two research papers to appear in Nature detailing conditions in the Arctic Ocean 55 to 50 million years ago during a time of unprecedented global warmth.

The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes. Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.


So like I told you before there was no human CO2 emmissions at that time, how do you explain the high temperatures at the north pole then?

 

[Chris]

Well in prehistoric earth....


A treasure trove of scientific data is revealing detailed information about conditions of subtropical warmth at the North Pole about 55 million years ago while also providing a window into the future, when greenhouse gases are expected to reach the same levels that caused Earth's ancient heat wave.


Researchers aboard a fleet of icebreakers collected samples by drilling into the floor of the Arctic Ocean during a 2004 expedition, and scientific findings will be published for the first time in several papers to appear Thursday (June 1) in Nature magazine.

"This project was a technological feat, and all of the findings in these papers are especially new and exciting given the fact that nobody's ever taken core samples like this before from the floor of the Arctic Ocean," said Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science. "As a climate modeler, gaining access to this data is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

The expedition was part of an international research effort called the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, which explores the Earth's history and structure as recorded in seafloor sediments and rocks.

Huber used new data from the research to compare against results from complex climate-model simulations he performed to study and predict the effects of greenhouse gases. He co-authored two research papers to appear in Nature detailing conditions in the Arctic Ocean 55 to 50 million years ago during a time of unprecedented global warmth.

The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes. Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.


So like I told you before there was no human CO2 emmissions at that time, how do you explain the high temperatures at the north pole then?

Ever heard of plate tectonics?

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jreeves]

Ever heard of plate tectonics?

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does that have to do with the article?

 

[jreeves]

Wow, what a powerful lobby. How do they compare to the oil, coal, and automobile companies?

I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...

 

[Charles_Main]

I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...

I know how Kirk can make his contribution to stopping global warming. He could stop breathing so damn much, it is going to kill us all.

 

[Chris]

I know how Kirk can make his contribution to stopping global warming. He could stop breathing so damn much, it is going to kill us all.

The science is there. I have posted it. Personal attacks prove nothing.

 

[Chris]

I notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact of ozone depletion's factor in raising earth's temperature...duly noted...

From Wiki.....

Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:

The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[citation needed] This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in polar ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.

Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sourcesConversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[42] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).[43]
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.[citation needed] Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km (12.4 miles), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[44]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m² of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.[43]
The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and testing take decades to both document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone, were hyphtosized in the 1980s, published in the late 1990s, and are currently being proven. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using a SGI Origin 2000 supercomputer, that modeled ozone destruction, accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further refinement of that model, accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years. (An important part of that model is the lack of staratospheric flight due to depletion of fossil fuels. )

 

[Chris]

What does that have to do with the article?

What does the discover of ancient tropical fossils on the sea floor in the arctic have to do with plate tectonics?

Everything.

The plates move great distances over millions of years. The part of the plate that is at the pole now was somewhere else millions of years ago.

 

[Chris]

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

 

[DeeJ1971]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately and was thinking about the whole GW thing while cleaning my pool this morning and I came up with a pretty good analogy I think using the fundamentals of the scientific process. I remember a few concepts from chemistry classes about the process and am simply applying those concepts the best way I know how to. I admit up front that I have much more to learn and might be completely wrong in how I am applying what little I do know about the topic and the scientific process.

Here is my analogy: In something as simple as my pool, if I were to use different methods to measure temperature, I would have to validate the data because one of the basic rules of the scientific process is that as soon as you change methods, you have to validate the data because there can be significant differences in results. For example, if I decided to take my thermometer out of the filter and throw it into the pool to start measuring temp, there would be all kinds of variables that would come into play. Is the cover on, is it a cloudy day, is the pump on, etc?

Imagine all the variables in weather over time compared to the variables in something as simple as my pool. Which got me to thinking about how the methods of measuring temperatures have changed over time. So I went to the NASA website and there is this quote ...."To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year."

So methods of measuring have changed over time, they continue to add new locations, and they now take AVERAGES from places all over the world. So think about the method of taking ice core samples. These samples have only been validated for 40 years out of 650,000 years. That would be like me validating my pool temperatures for one second out of a year.

From what I understand about ice core sampling, the samples do not show what temperatures or what the CO2 levels were in different places around the world. They take a core from one chunk of ice. That specific core of ice has spots of air pockets on it that they can take CO2 readings and temp readings from. Well, when that particular spot on the ice core froze, was it during night time or daytime? During the winter or summer? I think the technology is amazing and certainly gives us information about ice ages and warming and cooling periods but it can't be precise because of the variables with weather and because it only gives us data about that specific area in time. In other words, the big peaks and valleys shown on the graphs I can buy, showing ice ages and such, but how can it be more precise than that? How can the margin of error between methods be validated?

You cannot show a trend when you move from one method to another unless you can validate the margin of error between the two methods. If I use a scale in my bathroom and all I care about is if I've gained or lost weight, and the margin of error is +2/ -2, I can show a trend. If I am 112 lbs one day and 114 lbs the next, it doesn't matter if I am really 110. I can still see that I've gained 2 lbs. If I go use another scale and the margin of error is +4/-4, and I want to validate the two methods, I must account for the margin of error of both methods if I want to be precise.

My whole point being that it would seem that an increase in temp of .6 degrees over 100 years would be well within the margin of error of using different methods over time and only having a validation of 40 years out of 650,000.

 

[Chris]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately and was thinking about the whole GW thing while cleaning my pool this morning and I came up with a pretty good analogy I think using the fundamentals of the scientific process. I remember a few concepts from chemistry classes about the process and am simply applying those concepts the best way I know how to. I admit up front that I have much more to learn and might be completely wrong in how I am applying what little I do know about the topic and the scientific process.

Here is my analogy: In something as simple as my pool, if I were to use different methods to measure temperature, I would have to validate the data because one of the basic rules of the scientific process is that as soon as you change methods, you have to validate the data because there can be significant differences in results. For example, if I decided to take my thermometer out of the filter and throw it into the pool to start measuring temp, there would be all kinds of variables that would come into play. Is the cover on, is it a cloudy day, is the pump on, etc?

Imagine all the variables in weather over time compared to the variables in something as simple as my pool. Which got me to thinking about how the methods of measuring temperatures have changed over time. So I went to the NASA website and there is this quote ...."To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year."

So methods of measuring have changed over time, they continue to add new locations, and they now take AVERAGES from places all over the world. So think about the method of taking ice core samples. These samples have only been validated for 40 years out of 650,000 years. That would be like me validating my pool temperatures for one second out of a year.

From what I understand about ice core sampling, the samples do not show what temperatures or what the CO2 levels were in different places around the world. They take a core from one chunk of ice. That specific core of ice has spots of air pockets on it that they can take CO2 readings and temp readings from. Well, when that particular spot on the ice core froze, was it during night time or daytime? During the winter or summer? I think the technology is amazing and certainly gives us information about ice ages and warming and cooling periods but it can't be precise because of the variables with weather and because it only gives us data about that specific area in time. In other words, the big peaks and valleys shown on the graphs I can buy, showing ice ages and such, but how can it be more precise than that? How can the margin of error between methods be validated?

You cannot show a trend when you move from one method to another unless you can validate the margin of error between the two methods. If I use a scale in my bathroom and all I care about is if I've gained or lost weight, and the margin of error is +2/ -2, I can show a trend. If I am 112 lbs one day and 114 lbs the next, it doesn't matter if I am really 110. I can still see that I've gained 2 lbs. If I go use another scale and the margin of error is +4/-4, and I want to validate the two methods, I must account for the margin of error of both methods if I want to be precise.

My whole point being that it would seem that an increase in temp of .6 degrees over 100 years would be well within the margin of error of using different methods over time and only having a validation of 40 years out of 650,000.

Why would you need to validate the ice cores when you are testing air from that time period?

It makes no sense.

There is no validation necessary.

 

[Charles_Main]

There is no validation necessary.

Clearly. LOL

 

[jreeves]

What does the discover of ancient tropical fossils on the sea floor in the arctic have to do with plate tectonics?

Everything.

The plates move great distances over millions of years. The part of the plate that is at the pole now was somewhere else millions of years ago.

Sure, these researchers knew nothing about plate tectonics when they wrote this article....

Just another closed minded AGW position...

 

[jreeves]

From Wiki.....

Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:

The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[citation needed] This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in polar ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.

Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sourcesConversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[42] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).[43]
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.[citation needed] Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km (12.4 miles), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[44]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m² of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.[43]
The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and testing take decades to both document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone, were hyphtosized in the 1980s, published in the late 1990s, and are currently being proven. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using a SGI Origin 2000 supercomputer, that modeled ozone destruction, accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further refinement of that model, accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years. (An important part of that model is the lack of staratospheric flight due to depletion of fossil fuels. )

You must have missed that part huh?

 

[DeeJ1971]

Why would you need to validate the ice cores when you are testing air from that time period?

Because they are an imperfect measure of temperature, the difference between the ice age and gas age can be off by 1000 years or more, and they only provide records of local temperature and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. How does a global warming theory show a trend using records of local conditions and a measurement that doesn't show the relationship between temps and gas concentrations for a particular point in time?

 

[Wow]

Dee,
I think you made an excellent post!

NASA admits, they do not have enough data to predict anything at the North Pole. Other researchers say it will take years to make any headway.

The sad part about all of this talk is that the heart of it is research funding greed. The scientists that just make up something that fits a political agenda get most of the funding, when the honest scientists looking for reliable data are left with nothing to continue their work.

All of this is about stealing taxpayers money and protecting the environment is not an objective.