|
The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades. Multi-year ice "extent" – which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface – is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found.
There's another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Comiso found that multi-year ice area is shrinking even faster than multi-year ice extent, by -17.2 percent per decade.
Source
|
On February 17 2012 03:45 Felnarion wrote:I know this is an old thread, but since it's kind of back, I had a question for myself a while ago. I'm in a range between climate change skeptic to climate change don't care. But I thought to myself...CO2 levels are definitely increasing. Can we prove why this is happening? And I think I came up with a way with a lot of credibility. I started out by bringing up depression/recession data in the United States (World's leading energy consumer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_StatesBased on this, I wanted to look at these years in comparison to the CO2 charts. If what I'm thinking is true, I should expect to see something during the longer/more severe depressions. The ones I picked out specifically were: 1. 1973-1975 (Length+Severity) 2. Early 80s (Length+Severity) 3. Early 90s (Length/Severity/Time since last recession) I felt the early 2000s recession was too shallow and brief, as well as anything happening between 1960 and 1970. While the 2010 or so recession would be very interesting, I would need another year or so of data to see what I would expect. I'll let you look at what I saw. ![[image loading]](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png) I've only applied this idea to the US economy, and only in a very simple way. I could go further with GDP growth rates and other variables, but I just haven't. If one of you wants to explore it further, be my guest. But as you can see, a prolonged dip in the mid-70s, a dip in the early 80s, and another in the early 90s. Solidifying this is the huge expansion throughout the 90s, widely accepted as a boom-time for the United States. Take from this what you will.
While you might be right to correlate CO2 emission with GDP its still only a correlation. Also the Mauna Lowa site, along with other CO2 measuring sites around the world, are meant to capture a global average so the US GDP would only be part of the story. What you also may not be taking into account in correlating GDP and CO2 emission is the ammount of CO2 emmitted per dollar spent. You might imagine in recent times it is possible to spend money on products that have lower CO2 emission (i.e. internet products, even starcraft) than was possible 30 years ago.
If you want clear evidence that CO2 emissions are due to human activity there is a diferent line of evidence called Isotope fractionation measurements. This is a pretty clever technique that requires alot of background but I'll try to give a breif overview. For any element it is possible to get an isotope which has a differnt amount of neutrons which will have a a slightly different but detectable weight. Since fossil fuels are dead organic matter there is thought to be very little isotopes in this matter compared to what we would usually oberve in the atmosphere. Scientist have been able to measure that the isotope fraction in the atmosphere has been shifted which would be explained by anthropogenic CO2 emission.
I managed to find a good review of Isotope Fractionation which explains it much better than I do which you should look over if you want evidence for anthropogenic cause CO2 increase.
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
|
Problem with many things is that solution is to just buy/use/consume LESS stuff. This is pretty universally bad for economies and people in general, because if we reduce consumption and demand, prices will rise to compensate. Realistically I think we should be looking for ways to increase efficiency and use less stuff. Educating people how to eat better/more efficiently. Better farming techniques without chemicals and shit.
Fuck lobbying damn.
|
Hey guys...I just finished the debate in my class about an hour ago. This was the worse debate I have ever participated..
I was suppose to talk about how the role of media in the debate talking on the side saying that climate change exists.Turns out, I was suppose to defend the mainstream media in saying that they were a great help towards getting the facts about global warming and they do nothing but right. I am not exaggerating, this is what I was told in the middle of the debate. Seriously...
And then the climate change denial side showed a screen shot of FOX News pole which added up to 120% and asked me if the media is still right. I said FOX News was full of crap and I lost points because I attacked the mainstream media. The irony is just sickening. I then talked about the Koch Brothers and their contribution towards climate change denial and the role of corporations in Proposition 23 because I was saying that the media is wrong. -__- So these deniers paint themselves as not watching any news at all and skeptical of everything but guns, God, America, and Glenn Beck.
btw here is the chart that harmed my argument. The paradoxes...God...so amazing.
![[image loading]](http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/koch-pope-comparison_final.jpg)
And what we learned from that class is that the mainstream media is far left...and all lobbying, even lobbying contributing towards denial, is funding the the idea that global warming is a conspiracy theory.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
This year was the hottest year of all time in the USA.
The average of this year was 12.94°C, 1.8°C above the 20th century avery of 11.11°C and 0.55°C above the former hottest year of all time (1998).
|
|
|
I think that chart is somewhat misleading. It assumes that all that money was spent on climate denial, rather than simply organizations that don't promote addressing the problem. Unless there is more context that I'm not seeing here. Most of those foundations listed on their are much more involved in other issues. The fact the data comes from a Greenpeace article makes it even less credible. They are never going to err on the conservative side when number crunching.
|
On March 05 2012 05:11 farside604 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 03:45 Felnarion wrote:I know this is an old thread, but since it's kind of back, I had a question for myself a while ago. I'm in a range between climate change skeptic to climate change don't care. But I thought to myself...CO2 levels are definitely increasing. Can we prove why this is happening? And I think I came up with a way with a lot of credibility. I started out by bringing up depression/recession data in the United States (World's leading energy consumer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_StatesBased on this, I wanted to look at these years in comparison to the CO2 charts. If what I'm thinking is true, I should expect to see something during the longer/more severe depressions. The ones I picked out specifically were: 1. 1973-1975 (Length+Severity) 2. Early 80s (Length+Severity) 3. Early 90s (Length/Severity/Time since last recession) I felt the early 2000s recession was too shallow and brief, as well as anything happening between 1960 and 1970. While the 2010 or so recession would be very interesting, I would need another year or so of data to see what I would expect. I'll let you look at what I saw. I've only applied this idea to the US economy, and only in a very simple way. I could go further with GDP growth rates and other variables, but I just haven't. If one of you wants to explore it further, be my guest. But as you can see, a prolonged dip in the mid-70s, a dip in the early 80s, and another in the early 90s. Solidifying this is the huge expansion throughout the 90s, widely accepted as a boom-time for the United States. Take from this what you will. While you might be right to correlate CO2 emission with GDP its still only a correlation. Also the Mauna Lowa site, along with other CO2 measuring sites around the world, are meant to capture a global average so the US GDP would only be part of the story. What you also may not be taking into account in correlating GDP and CO2 emission is the ammount of CO2 emmitted per dollar spent. You might imagine in recent times it is possible to spend money on products that have lower CO2 emission (i.e. internet products, even starcraft) than was possible 30 years ago. If you want clear evidence that CO2 emissions are due to human activity there is a diferent line of evidence called Isotope fractionation measurements. This is a pretty clever technique that requires alot of background but I'll try to give a breif overview. For any element it is possible to get an isotope which has a differnt amount of neutrons which will have a a slightly different but detectable weight. Since fossil fuels are dead organic matter there is thought to be very little isotopes in this matter compared to what we would usually oberve in the atmosphere. Scientist have been able to measure that the isotope fraction in the atmosphere has been shifted which would be explained by anthropogenic CO2 emission. I managed to find a good review of Isotope Fractionation which explains it much better than I do which you should look over if you want evidence for anthropogenic cause CO2 increase. http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
Dont see the correlation.
If you see the averages (the black horizontal lines wich span 10 years) you will see that the average did drop in 1990-2000
1990-2000 was a period with overall huge economic growth (a lot more then 1980-1990) and it was also a time oil was verry cheap (15$ a barrel) so i asume people didnt have to care how much oil they did burn in that time.
If there realy was a direct correlation, 1990-2000 should be clearly above 1980-1990
That this is not the case, prooves at least that gdp is not the only factor, and probably not even the most important.
|
On January 09 2013 06:54 BluePanther wrote:
I think that chart is somewhat misleading. It assumes that all that money was spent on climate denial, rather than simply organizations that don't promote addressing the problem. Unless there is more context that I'm not seeing here. Most of those foundations listed on their are much more involved in other issues. The fact the data comes from a Greenpeace article makes it even less credible. They are never going to err on the conservative side when number crunching.
I think you are right about this. Most of those institutions listed have numerous functions and agendas, not simply climate denial. Pic seems very misleading.
|
The problem being is that people who don't believe in global warming won't believe anything until it happens to them, anything the government or pro groups publish is just a push to change their daily lives etc. So watch and observe world the U.S. is going to be the prime example of what NOT to do.
A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.
None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the possible connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more strongly supported by the science.
The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed, the assessment noted.
The draft report, which was prepared by the so-called National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee and written and amassed by a group of 240 scientists, will be subject to a three-month period of review and public comment.
"Climate change presents a major challenge for society," the committee's leadership said in a letter addressed to the American people. "This report and the sustained assessment process that is being developed represent steps forward in advancing our understanding of that challenge and its far-reaching implications for our nation and the world."
In an emailed statement, Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report confirms what many Americans already know. "Hurricane Sandy and the historic droughts, floods and heat waves happening across the country aren't a fluke, but the result of a climate warming much faster than previously thought," he said. "If we put off action on climate change, the costs of addressing its impacts will only rise and this extreme weather will be just the beginning. This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act."
Source
|
This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act
As sickening as it is, that will never happen. We're going to watch as our world burns.
|
I'm confident alternate fuel sources and atmosphere recyclers will be able to reverse any negative side effects by 2100!
|
I am genuinely interested why of all the ecological problems is there so much focus of climate change alone? Soil erosion, deforestation, vanishing aquifers, pollution, depleting fishing stocks, failing nitrogen and potassium cycles as well as overall increasing difficulty of finding affordable oil and rare earth metals, all of it combined with growing population is of less concern than climate change? Media seems to say so... and that's confusing...
|
United States9292 Posts
Watch and observe world in America is what NOT to do?
Well, I've personally "watched and observed" blizzards in the early 90s pushed back to rainfall during the same time period..
Fairly sure global warming, whether due to tilt, progression, etc, or actually causated by co2 emissions, the greenhouse gas effect, etc like I presume are very real. I can't put my finger on the exact reason, though, and it could be c. both
|
On January 13 2013 13:56 Bill Murray wrote:
Watch and observe world in America is what NOT to do?
Well, I've personally "watched and observed" blizzards in the early 90s pushed back to rainfall during the same time period..
Fairly sure global warming, whether due to tilt, progression, etc, or actually causated by co2 emissions, the greenhouse gas effect, etc like I presume are very real. I can't put my finger on the exact reason, though, and it could be c. both
Economically, certainly Politically...
|
Everyone talks about using ethanol as a viable source of alternative energy, but what happens when we have droughts like the ones that occured in the midwest this past year, I live in the heart of the U.S., this year was completely devastating to farmers. What happens when you have another dust bowl, when there is years of no corn being harvested? You can't really think that you would have enough corn to feed the people of the world whilst having enough to provide for fuels. Obviously we have reserves, but those would be depleted very rapidly if ethanol was going to be used as a primary source of energy. Global Warming IS a hoax, obviously the earth warms/cools, but humans alone cannot cause the earth to go into some sort of ice age, we can contribute, but at such a minimalistic impact that it doesn't matter. I believe in leaving your carbon footprint as small as you can, at the same time, I don't believe some hoax that people are trying to make billions of dollars off. Al gore telling your personal stories in a video was very inspirational, but trust me buddy you aren't getting me emotionally attached to the point where I will believe some fictional theory.
|
On January 13 2013 13:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The problem being is that people who don't believe in global warming won't believe anything until it happens to them, anything the government or pro groups publish is just a push to change their daily lives etc. So watch and observe world the U.S. is going to be the prime example of what NOT to do. Show nested quote +A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.
None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the possible connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more strongly supported by the science.
The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed, the assessment noted.
The draft report, which was prepared by the so-called National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee and written and amassed by a group of 240 scientists, will be subject to a three-month period of review and public comment.
"Climate change presents a major challenge for society," the committee's leadership said in a letter addressed to the American people. "This report and the sustained assessment process that is being developed represent steps forward in advancing our understanding of that challenge and its far-reaching implications for our nation and the world."
In an emailed statement, Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report confirms what many Americans already know. "Hurricane Sandy and the historic droughts, floods and heat waves happening across the country aren't a fluke, but the result of a climate warming much faster than previously thought," he said. "If we put off action on climate change, the costs of addressing its impacts will only rise and this extreme weather will be just the beginning. This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act." Source
You act as if climate change is something new that "HUMANS HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE!" I'm sorry, but if you go back 100's of years of climates being charted, you can see the variation, everyone wants to blame it on humans burning fossil fuel. I'm sorry, but the sun is getting hotter, could that possibly make the earth warmer! The moon drifts further away from the earth, could that make the earth warmer! There are literally a 100 things that could contribute to global warming, but what is the single one that could fill our pockets? Oh wait, humans.
|
On January 13 2013 14:33 lowreezy08 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 13:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The problem being is that people who don't believe in global warming won't believe anything until it happens to them, anything the government or pro groups publish is just a push to change their daily lives etc. So watch and observe world the U.S. is going to be the prime example of what NOT to do. A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.
None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the possible connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more strongly supported by the science.
The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed, the assessment noted.
The draft report, which was prepared by the so-called National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee and written and amassed by a group of 240 scientists, will be subject to a three-month period of review and public comment.
"Climate change presents a major challenge for society," the committee's leadership said in a letter addressed to the American people. "This report and the sustained assessment process that is being developed represent steps forward in advancing our understanding of that challenge and its far-reaching implications for our nation and the world."
In an emailed statement, Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report confirms what many Americans already know. "Hurricane Sandy and the historic droughts, floods and heat waves happening across the country aren't a fluke, but the result of a climate warming much faster than previously thought," he said. "If we put off action on climate change, the costs of addressing its impacts will only rise and this extreme weather will be just the beginning. This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act." Source You act as if climate change is something new that "HUMANS HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE!" I'm sorry, but if you go back 100's of years of climates being charted, you can see the variation, everyone wants to blame it on humans burning fossil fuel. I'm sorry, but the sun is getting hotter, could that possibly make the earth warmer! The moon drifts further away from the earth, could that make the earth warmer! There are literally a 100 things that could contribute to global warming, but what is the single one that could fill our pockets? Oh wait, humans.
Listen, child, go back to school and learn. And an advice for when you grow up: don't openly declare things you don't have a clue about.
|
On January 13 2013 14:45 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 14:33 lowreezy08 wrote:On January 13 2013 13:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The problem being is that people who don't believe in global warming won't believe anything until it happens to them, anything the government or pro groups publish is just a push to change their daily lives etc. So watch and observe world the U.S. is going to be the prime example of what NOT to do. A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.
None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the possible connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more strongly supported by the science.
The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed, the assessment noted.
The draft report, which was prepared by the so-called National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee and written and amassed by a group of 240 scientists, will be subject to a three-month period of review and public comment.
"Climate change presents a major challenge for society," the committee's leadership said in a letter addressed to the American people. "This report and the sustained assessment process that is being developed represent steps forward in advancing our understanding of that challenge and its far-reaching implications for our nation and the world."
In an emailed statement, Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report confirms what many Americans already know. "Hurricane Sandy and the historic droughts, floods and heat waves happening across the country aren't a fluke, but the result of a climate warming much faster than previously thought," he said. "If we put off action on climate change, the costs of addressing its impacts will only rise and this extreme weather will be just the beginning. This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act." Source You act as if climate change is something new that "HUMANS HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE!" I'm sorry, but if you go back 100's of years of climates being charted, you can see the variation, everyone wants to blame it on humans burning fossil fuel. I'm sorry, but the sun is getting hotter, could that possibly make the earth warmer! The moon drifts further away from the earth, could that make the earth warmer! There are literally a 100 things that could contribute to global warming, but what is the single one that could fill our pockets? Oh wait, humans. Listen, child, go back to school and learn. And an advice for when you grow up: don't openly declare things you don't have a clue about.
Child? I am probably old enough to be your father, but very logical and thoughtful rebuttal moron. I did go to school, and they try their dearest to make you believe in global warming, basically accepting it as FACT, just like the evolution theory. I want you to do something, imagine the earth, imagine how huge it is, ok now 2/3rds of it is water, the other 3rd is land, inside that land you get a VERY SMALL percentage of fossil fuels available, now think if we burn that VERY SMALL percentage, you think that it will cause global warming, when you have volcanoes emitting more carbon than fossil fuels alone? If yes, you are very close minded. (this is idiot proof)
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 09 2013 06:40 Fenrax wrote:
This year was the hottest year of all time in the USA.
The average of this year was 12.94°C, 1.8°C above the 20th century avery of 11.11°C and 0.55°C above the former hottest year of all time (1998).
weather != climate
a single year is completly irrelevant, u have to look at the big picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
