PDA

View Full Version : Environment Arctic ice at second-lowest level ever


penguinz
08-27-2008, 04:50 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- New satellite measurements show that crucial sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has plummeted to its second-lowest level on record.
<!--startclickprintexclude--> <!----><!--===========IMAGE============-->
The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, announced Wednesday that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic is down to 2.03 million square miles.

The lowest point on record is 1.65 million square miles set last September.
With about three weeks left in the melt season, the record may fall, scientists say.

Arctic ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter. But over the years, more and more of the ice is lost to the sea and not recovered in winter.

That's important because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the globe.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/27/artic.ice.melt.ap/index.html

tiptap
08-27-2008, 08:24 PM
Yeah, GE wind machines melted the ice.

Iowanian
08-27-2008, 09:31 PM
350miles north of Dutch Harbor, Sig Hansen and the crue of the Northwestern celebrate the lengthened opeleo fishing grounds remaining open and the ice staying away from their gear.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 09:29 AM
And how long have the been recording this?

tiptap
08-28-2008, 09:41 AM
Well, I'd say over a thousand years. There have been, since the time of the Vikings attempts to find the NorthWest Passage. So Ice has been an obstacle to that for that long. Now if you want to just focus on the more rigorous scientific reports than you go back a 100 years. And constantly for 50 years starting with Nuclear Submarine data.

And the results are that the ice volume and area have been falling over time.

Ultra Peanut
08-28-2008, 09:44 AM
Polar bears are in the pocket of Big Science.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 09:50 AM
Well, I'd say over a thousand years. There have been, since the time of the Vikings attempts to find the NorthWest Passage. So Ice has been an obstacle to that for that long. Now if you want to just focus on the more rigorous scientific reports than you go back a 100 years. And constantly for 50 years starting with Nuclear Submarine data.

And the results are that the ice volume and area have been falling over time.


That doesn't make sense. It's an exact number of years. Either we have been doing it 20 or 25 (examples) years and we've either been doing it right or we haven't. I am just asking because if we've only been doing it for 50 years then we have don't have enough data to know what is causing it or if it's a natural cycle.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 10:01 AM
Timescales Garcia, time scales. There is evidence of crocodiles at the Arctic in parts of our geological past. Is it that you allow this to be 100s of millions of years or are you only see the world as 6000 years old. I have no time to go through the proxies that exist. I gave the historical accounts involving marine exploration as evidence. Certainly since the 1700's there have been whaling, shipping and fishing exploration and commerce up against the ice. That data set has indicated a larger ice extent than in the last 100 years. There are ice core samples on land that indicate this. I think if you have reason to believe the arctic has been this small in the past that you find the evidence. I can't find any that is substantiated. You raise a red herring because you don't want to do the hard work to show otherwise.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 10:07 AM
Timescales Garcia, time scales. There is evidence of crocodiles at the Arctic in parts of our geological past. Is it that you allow this to be 100s of millions of years or are you only see the world as 6000 years old. I have no time to go through the proxies that exist. I gave the historical accounts involving marine exploration as evidence. Certainly since the 1700's there have been whaling, shipping and fishing exploration and commerce up against the ice. That data set has indicated a larger ice extent than in the last 100 years. There are ice core samples on land that indicate this. I think if you have reason to believe the arctic has been this small in the past that you find the evidence. I can't find any that is substantiated. You raise a red herring because you don't want to do the hard work to show otherwise.


Not exactly. I am looking at it from a research methods perspective. People braving the arctic is data, but it's confounding data. Without precise measurements on a longitudinal scale we cannot draw valid conclusion. We can only make an educated guess, which is still a guess.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 10:16 AM
But -- like the Arctic ice itself -- military secrecy seems to be thawing. About a year ago, Rothrock convinced Navy brass that measurements taken in the 1950s could be helpful in figuring out whether the data from the '90s was statistically significant. Armed with a pile of new numbers, Rothrock guessed that they might show that the polar cap had shrunk perhaps 18-20 inches over the past half century.

He was wrong. The actual shrinkage left him astonished.

On average, the University of Washington team found that ice had thinned by four feet (1.3 meters) -- a 40 percent decrease since 1953. The "trend" of the 1990s seemed to be an indisputable fact.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/03/arctic.ice/index.html

And of course the satellite and continuing studies by the Navy SINCE THE 1990's have seen these numbers go down and down. So that is nearly 60 years of rigorous data.

irishjayhawk
08-28-2008, 10:20 AM
But -- like the Arctic ice itself -- military secrecy seems to be thawing. About a year ago, Rothrock convinced Navy brass that measurements taken in the 1950s could be helpful in figuring out whether the data from the '90s was statistically significant. Armed with a pile of new numbers, Rothrock guessed that they might show that the polar cap had shrunk perhaps 18-20 inches over the past half century.

He was wrong. The actual shrinkage left him astonished.

On average, the University of Washington team found that ice had thinned by four feet (1.3 meters) -- a 40 percent decrease since 1953. The "trend" of the 1990s seemed to be an indisputable fact.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/03/arctic.ice/index.html

And of course the satellite and continuing studies by the Navy SINCE THE 1990's have seen these numbers go down and down. So that is nearly 60 years of rigorous data.

Which, he will then argue, is 60 out of 10000 at the very least. Most will argue that is not good enough to show a trend, especially if we're talking about the cycle of the planet.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 10:29 AM
So I am waiting for the proxies that show the Arctic has been that small. And a working explanation for that small size. You have to have both. I can say it is colder in the winter than it is in the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. That is not the reason. It is just the trend. The reasoning is the tilt of the earth and we can show that changes in the tilt has led to larger or smaller change between season. The Arctic ice is shrinking and the only cause left is Greenhouse Gas Effect. And we know that the amount of CO 2 gas put into the atmoshpere BY MAN IS 10 TIMES the amount EACH YEAR than is produced by all of the volcanoes in the world EACH YEAR. It is like man is a volcano that is 10 times bigger than all the other volcanoes put together. (We don't get the dust so we don't get that dampening effect unfortunately. A real volcano of that size would REDUCE temperatures.)

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 11:08 AM
But -- like the Arctic ice itself -- military secrecy seems to be thawing. About a year ago, Rothrock convinced Navy brass that measurements taken in the 1950s could be helpful in figuring out whether the data from the '90s was statistically significant. Armed with a pile of new numbers, Rothrock guessed that they might show that the polar cap had shrunk perhaps 18-20 inches over the past half century.

He was wrong. The actual shrinkage left him astonished.

On average, the University of Washington team found that ice had thinned by four feet (1.3 meters) -- a 40 percent decrease since 1953. The "trend" of the 1990s seemed to be an indisputable fact.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/03/arctic.ice/index.html

And of course the satellite and continuing studies by the Navy SINCE THE 1990's have seen these numbers go down and down. So that is nearly 60 years of rigorous data.

Irish is right, it's not 10,000 years of data, but the 60 year trend is what it is. Hopefully we get back more this year.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:21 PM
Sure, let's dismiss 60 years of data in favor of speculation, it is underwater volcanoes. After all there is no increase in land base temperatures. No wait there is but it is cosmic rays. There is no loss of floating ice in Antarctica, no wait there is must be the ozone. There is no northern movement and lengthening of growing seasons, no wait that is it must be more vigorous plants. There is no rise in oceanic temperature, but there is and must be ocean currents and on and on and on.

I'll go through this again. Taking JUST solar radiation and solar flux in and thermal radiation out of the earth and the heat from within the earth, one CAN only account for a temperature average well below what we find on earth's surface. The difference, the additional energy, comes from the re irradiation of red shifted radiation in the atmosphere back to earth. That is the Greenhouse Effect. One finds only one explanation offered and that is based upon the absorption spectrum of different gases. When that is applied the temperature difference is accounted for.

No other explanation is offered. There is no refutation of this understanding of the Greenhouse Effect part, in meeting this otherwise discrepancy in predicted temperatures. And yet we have direct measurements of increasing Greenhouse gases and this correlates with ever higher temperatures and OTHER physical events indicating more energy in climate systems. And yet people want to point to anything else instead of BEING AN ADULT, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY without recrimination AND DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 01:25 PM
Sure, let's dismiss 60 years of data in favor of speculation, it is underwater volcanoes. After all there is no increase in land base temperatures. No wait there is but it is cosmic rays. There is no loss of floating ice in Antarctica, no wait there is must be the ozone. There is no northern movement and lengthening of growing seasons, no wait that is it must be more vigorous plants. There is no rise in oceanic temperature, but there is and must be ocean currents and on and on and on.

I'll go through this again. Taking JUST solar radiation and solar flux in and thermal radiation out of the earth and the heat from within the earth, one CAN only account for a temperature average well below what we find on earth's surface. The difference, the additional energy, comes from the re irradiation of red shifted radiation in the atmosphere back to earth. That is the Greenhouse Effect. One finds only one explanation offered and that is based upon the absorption spectrum of different gases. When that is applied the temperature difference is accounted for.

No other explanation is offered. There is no refutation of this understanding of the Greenhouse Effect part, in meeting this otherwise discrepancy in predicted temperatures. And yet we have direct measurements of increasing Greenhouse gases and this correlates with ever higher temperatures and OTHER physical events indicating more energy in climate systems. And yet people want to point to anything else instead of BEING AN ADULT, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY without recrimination AND DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM.

I didn't dismiss 60 years of data. A trend is what it is, but that doesn't mean we can control it or ever had any control over it.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:45 PM
So what does control it? You offer no scientific explanation. All you offer is "I don't know." 60 years trend should have a 60 year corresponding answer. I offered one. 60 years of increasing Greenhouse gases. You offer vacant comments.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 01:52 PM
So what does control it? You offer no scientific explanation. All you offer is "I don't know." 60 years trend should have a 60 year corresponding answer. I offered one. 60 years of increasing Greenhouse gases. You offer vacant comments.


Research methods axiom:

Just because there is a cause that doesn't mean IT's THE cause. How many trees have we lost in that time frame?

tiptap
08-28-2008, 02:33 PM
Could I have your Research Methods list please. It is so abbreviated that I am unsure that you aren't just going to make things up as we go along with this discussion. In science we would rather put the information out there rather than playing coy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-28-2008, 02:37 PM
Could I have your Research Methods list please. It is so abbreviated that I am unsure that you aren't just going to make things up as we go along with this discussion. In science we would rather put the information out there rather than playing coy.

pwned.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 03:04 PM
Could I have your Research Methods list please. It is so abbreviated that I am unsure that you aren't just going to make things up as we go along with this discussion. In science we would rather put the information out there rather than playing coy.

Out there: Even though the conclusions are typically based on one study which is hard to make an inference with.

I took classes in research methods and worked in research for 4 years as an assistant on contract to the NIMH at Virginia Tech and have the degree to prove it.


I bet you (or anyone here) could not name the 4 sciences(not many can) and there are only 4. Oh and put them in order.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 03:13 PM
Biology Geology Chemistry and Physics. As such I have reversed the orthodox order because in the modern world of complexity Biology got there first, followed in the order given.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 03:16 PM
Biology Geology Chemistry and Physics. As such I have reversed the orthodox order because in the modern world of complexity Biology got there first, followed in the order given.


You are the man. No one can ever answer that question. Rep

I would say thought that Geology is actually a part of chemistry/physics and Psychology is actually the 4th, but good enough.

so my order as I learned it

Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psyc. Each building on the one before.

I love it when people answer this with the words like

"earth science"

tiptap
08-28-2008, 03:19 PM
I find this exercise fairly uninformative. You either do have some source that is sufficient to this discussion which you wish to introduce to us all or you don't. Now it may be that you think there is no abbreviated statement that will suffice. But then don't bring this crap up as if you are the only one who has ever done research.

SBK
08-28-2008, 03:21 PM
tiptap, you'd be happier, and the world would be a better place if you'd just buy a crapton of carbon credits for everyone.... :)

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 03:22 PM
I find this exercise fairly uninformative. You either do have some source that is sufficient to this discussion which you wish to introduce to us all or you don't. Now it may be that you think there is no abbreviated statement that will suffice. But then don't bring this crap up as if you are the only one who has ever done research.


The point is exactly this:

There is more we don't know than we do know and there is no sense in taking a wrecking ball to economies over a mere study or a weak amount of data. That doesn't mean I don't support conservation, but the idea that we have all the answer is far-fetched.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 03:24 PM
Have you seen my electric scooter

http://www.egovehicles.com/

SBK
08-28-2008, 03:29 PM
Have you seen my electric scooter

http://www.egovehicles.com/

This is not directed at you at all.

When I saw that scooter all I could think was about the great hairy armpit jungle bush tail that a dude could pull on one of those. ROFL

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.....If they had made the tires bigger it would have looked more like a 'normal' bike, which would have made it immensely cooler IMO.

There's some pretty cool green car tech coming out, the Chevy Volt is interesting, and I have been reading that BMW is working on a MINI 100 model, the 100 stands for miles per gallon. They also have hydrogen engined cars, working on diesel hybrid and have actually changed the focus of their company to make everything lighter and more efficient.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 03:31 PM
The point is exactly this:

There is more we don't know than we do know and there is no sense in taking a wrecking ball to economies over a mere study or a weak amount of data. That doesn't mean I don't support conservation, but the idea that we have all the answer is far-fetched.

It is interesting you place Physics first. And yet you wish to place economics as something more permanent and immutable than the physical findings. I can't change the physics; we can mollify our economies, not our economics systems, just the energy generating methods.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 03:32 PM
You made it or own it?

Nice either way. My roomate in college, an ME, (on a team)produced an electric car at Virginia Tech. Pretty sweet.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 03:33 PM
This is not directed at you at all.

When I saw that scooter all I could think was about the great hairy armpit jungle bush tail that a dude could pull on one of those. ROFL

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.....If they had made the tires bigger it would have looked more like a 'normal' bike, which would have made it immensely cooler IMO.

There's some pretty cool green car tech coming out, the Chevy Volt is interesting, and I have been reading that BMW is working on a MINI 100 model, the 100 stands for miles per gallon. They also have hydrogen engined cars, working on diesel hybrid and have actually changed the focus of their company to make everything lighter and more efficient.

And I am really glad for GM to get on the right side of this. And I hope they make a good product on the way. And it must be the same for the rest of the American system. Hell we talk all the time that the American system is the most agile. Here is a real need to prove this for all of our's success in many, many ways.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 03:37 PM
It is interesting you place Physics first. And yet you wish to place economics as something more permanent and immutable than the physical findings. I can't change the physics; we can mollify our economies, not our economics systems, just the energy generating methods.

Interesting take.

Well. Without physics there can be no chemistry, without chemistry there can be no biology, without biology there can be no human behavior. I got out of the research game a long time ago and I am no economist. I just understand my own economy. I have generally one rule. I can't spend more than I make. And you are right.

SBK
08-28-2008, 03:38 PM
And I am really glad for GM to get on the right side of this. And I hope they make a good product on the way. And it must be the same for the rest of the American system. Hell we talk all the time that the American system is the most agile. Here is a real need to prove this for all of our's success in many, many ways.

I'm not a GM guy at all, but I will look hard at the Volt when it comes out. The funny thing is I'd want to buy one so that I could do something to help GM make it a success. If it's a home run, which it will be if they can price it right, we'll see many more products like it.

GM is putting all their chips on the table on this one, I hope it works....Now someone shoot me, I sound like Jake.