Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss…
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
Lockstep reactionaries may as well skip the article – and Maslowski’s criticism of his own work as being too conservative. Plus, why the IPCC uses “averaged” projections which may be too conservative.
Hey, thats just great. Just watching “Amazing Planet” and pretty solid evidence one of the mass extinctions happened when the oceans warmed enough to release the MASSIVE amounts of frozen methane in the sea beds. Seems that is enough for an extinction event AND that temperature is only a few degrees more than the current ocean temperature.
I might see the end of life as we know it. Thats a good thing, only in one very narrow and self centered way==but I’m a neo-con selling the human race short.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
It’d be ironic if it really isn’t man’s fault for global warming, yet his ways trying to prevent it whether or not knows it was/wasn’t his fault, causes him to worsen or destroy a key ecological foundation, dooming most of mankind anyway.
# 1 bobbo
“release the MASSIVE amounts of frozen methane in the sea beds.”
That would be very very very bad.
# 2 gquaglia
“I’ll believe it when I see it.”
Well lucky you you may get your chance.
I hate to say this, but it might take the fucked up nations and countries of the world almost all loss of ice to actually do something about it.
It’s been noted here before – that the typical Know-Nothing really does know nothing of how conservative virtually all scientists are about peer review and being able to reproduce the results of their analyses.
The evidence stacking up on an accelerating rate of climate change is forcing many in the scientific community to re-evaluate conclusions. While the laugh-a-minute crowd whose testicles are wired directly to Oil Patch HQ still take up space with maundering and malingering. At least some of the negative effects of inaction are beginning to slide towards happening in my lifetime.
There’s little satisfaction from the “I told you so’s”. The damage from inaction on the environmental front can be as critical as inaction over confronting our chickenhawks.
Validation doesn’t especially make up for lost time.
#3 – DavidtheDuke,
Why care only about mankind? What about womankind? What about dolphinkind? What about chimpkind? In short, please try not to be so speciesist. 🙂
#1 – bobbo,
I’m hoping for just the opposite. I’m hoping that I get to live out the rest of my life expectancy without witnessing the Great Human Die-Off. I know I can’t really witness it, even if it starts sooner than that. I’ll die in the first wave for two reasons:
1) I’m a diabetic and thus dependent on advanced civilization for life support.
2) I don’t want to witness it and will ensure that I do not. I hope to do a better job than Sunny von Bülow (or than Klaus tried to do for/to her, depending on your opinion in the case).
#6 – rfk,
Extremely well stated. ROFL over the testicles metaphor.
I see that the UN is helping this along by flying halfway across the world to Bali to debate about Global Warming, rather than debate it in New York City in the winter. Nice way to get a free vacation out of the issue.
Hypocrites…
#1 Yep, the “common” people will disappear. Various governments have set up shelters for such events, for the “chosen” people to survive.
Hollywood has even prepared us mentally and visually.
#2 lol
#3 It’s a combination of factors, humans are simply speeding it up.
If it wasn’t for the easy use of oil & coal, we would not be as evolved scientifically today.
So in a way, these last 150 years has been a race to ensure our long term survival to an extinction event. That could not have happened without abuse.
At least today, we are advanced enough to shift to alternate technologies for power, which will be needed for the surviving human race.
The new race is the green race.
Everyone guard your wallets, the eco-freaks are generating more fear as a way to pick your pocket.
Arctic “could be” ice-free in 5 to 6 years… pleeezze. Scientist my ass. I’d say pirate would be a better description.
Just saw an article how they found a dinosaur fossil under the melted ice. That’s a cold blooded mammal. What does that mean? That that area was once warm and had no ice. The planet is 4 billion years old and we’ve been tracking the weather for 100 of them. How does anyone get a pattern out of that? It could be the pattern that Chicago never gets under 120 degrees for 10,000 years, who knows? Or a million.
It’s great that we are looking at this and trying to clean up our ways. It takes generations to accomplish this. It’s a good thing. Remember the crying Indian with litter all over the place? The next generation cleaned that up. And other things too.
It appears the temperature is going up, but you cannot automatically conclude it is not a cycle. There are more variables than what humans are doing, a lot more.
I’m just saying – please look at all the facts, variables and options before deciding on just one.
#11–OK George. I found a scientist working for Rush Limbarf and he says “The ice is not melting. Everything you can see with your own eyes is just a liberal lie to raise your taxes. Projections of trends underway pointing to total ice melt in 50-100 years should not be updated with new discoveries of the underlying physics.”
Happy now?
# 11 George Jetson
“Everyone guard your wallets, the eco-freaks are generating more fear as a way to pick your pocket.”
That’s right use the propaganda that they will take your money. That always gets people fighting mad. Would you like to compare the amount of tax dollars that go to oil subsidies vs. climate research?
#12–Dave==I’m just saying – please look at all the facts, variables and options before deciding on just one.
Just what do you think they did?
# 12 dave t
“The planet is 4 billion years old and we’ve been tracking the weather for 100 of them. How does anyone get a pattern out of that?”
You really don’t know? Perhaps you should not debate this issue then.
“Just saw an article how they found a dinosaur fossil under the melted ice. That’s a cold blooded mammal. What does that mean? That area was once warm and had no ice. ”
Care to quote a source? If that area had no ice there wouldn’t be any land animal cold or warm blooded walking around because it sits on an ocean.
“It appears the temperature is going up, but you cannot automatically conclude it is not a cycle.”
Again if this is what you think you really should educate yourself more on the issue.
“There are more variables than what humans are doing, a lot more.”
Yeah no kidding and those things are taking into account.
#10 – Mark Derail,
The technology will fix everything philosophy does have its flaws. For starters, it has never done so before without creating a host of new problems, usually more severe than the original problem to be solved.
Consider that cars were the solution to New York City’s horse problem. Horses were loud and created a lot of smell. Now we have cars. We have even bigger problems, smog, asthma, traffic fatalities, and the more minor, but ever present fact that cars have taken over the city to such a degree that people get far less enjoyment out of it.
The same can be done for most technological advances. They simply allow us to consume the limited resources of our planet at an ever increasing rate without regard to future generations. So, we steal food from our children to feed ourselves. It’s a bad philosophy.
We need sustainability. That cannot happen in a consumerist society. That cannot happen with an increasing human population. For this latter, just consider that at any rate of increase, in a relative geological instant (currently at about 5,000 years by one calculation assuming current rate of increase, if I remember correctly), the humans on the planet will equal the entire mass of the planet.
Since this cannot happen (not should not, but physically cannot), any sustained increase, however slight, in human population is completely and utterly unsustainable.
Here’s a bit of trivia many people are unaware of. The 2007 IPCC report was to include a section on human population growth, with the intent of reducing the growth rate and stabilizing the number of humans on the planet.
Just three “countries” vetoed this, thus proving that IPCC does indeed work by consensus. Any guesses on the countries?
Nevermind, I’ll just provide the answer.
Iran
The Vatican
The United States
Wonderful bedfellows these.
#15
I don’t know – do you? Did you see all the combined research? Did you attend some sort of debate or seminar from leading scientists not on corporate payroll? Or do you just know what you know from reading articles and blogs on the net?
Again, I’m not saying it’s bad. But I don’t listen to just one point of view.
Maybe that’s not a bad idea. Lets get some highly respected scientists from both sides to open up their research, not just a debate but actual data in a structured forum so we can get the facts.
Reality is perception
Hey George Jetson,
You get benefits being on the “company”‘s Payroll?
#17 Had humans not exploited a cheap (and VERY polluting) power source, the level of advanced education and technology would not be what it is today.
Why was the US the technological leader? It was the only country NOT in a civil war with more OIL than it could consume. For a few years, until domestic demand outpaced domestic production.
That’s when the sh7t hit the fan.
Ironically, thanks to the advancement of science, we have nuclear, solar & wind that generates electricity. Slowly this technology will replace coal & oil for electricity.
No more Artic ice in 2013-ish will cause runaway problems, the end result should be a huge reduction in human population worldwide.
Having non-oil non-coal power generation infrastructure will be crucial for the survival of the human race.
Yes, that means that even if humans hadn’t sped up global warming, it would have happened on it’s own, just like in the past.
Interesting times ahead.
# 18 dave t
“I don’t know – do you?”
Yeah I do. It is called core sampling.
“Did you see all the combined research?”
All? Well I don’t think anyone has seen ALL of the research. I have seen enough to agree with the scientific consensus that the climate is indeed warming and that humans are part of the cause.
“Did you attend some sort of debate or seminar from leading scientists not on corporate payroll? ”
The ones on the corporate payroll are the ones claiming it isn’t happening. Yes, I did attend a scientific seminar or two on the issue lol. I tend to look into things when people are asking for me to donate money.
“Or do you just know what you know from reading articles and blogs on the net? ”
I do read articles. Some in support. Some in denial. Blogs?????? LOL are you kidding me? Not unless the blogger is a Scientist.
“Reality is perception”
No it is overwhelming scientific evidence
18–Dave==AGAIN!==what makes you think this is just one view?
I’ve read so much, I forget the sources but different cycles are regularly accounted for, all kinds of cycles, the earths tilt, rotation, orbit as in the meander cycle, the hydrologic cycle, the offset of cloud cover and the negative affects of water vapor, and on and on.
So, yea, a group of scientists posting in peer reviewed publications far more authoritive than dumbshits like you and me making a generic observation unfettered by facts.
#22–George==just to let us know what your thinking of==please name just one discrepancy the global warming camp has made? and note, don’t use discrepancies that have already been corrected for and incorporated in the current conservative (ie, already too late and too mild) advisories?
Yes, fixing things always cost money. Lets take trash removal. Are you against that because it transfers money from trash producers to trash removers?
If not, what do you take carbon pollution to be?
#24
You seem to have a thing for oil subsidies. Rest easy one has nothing to do with the other.
#21
Believe it or not I’m an open minded guy. Could you answer some questions for me that would get me on the right track?
This one comes up a lot. The Vikings used to farm Greenland. Is this true? Because you can’t now.
Are there 400 year old fossils found under the melting ice right now? This would indicate there was no ice there 400 + years ago.
Finding the dinosaur fossil is a fact. They can’t live in the cold. How did it get there? Seems when there was no ice there.
The planet naturally gives off carbon dioxide, matter of fact, volcanic eruptions give off a lot. How much is natural and how much is man?
I’m not being sarcastic in anyway, I’m just opening a discussion. I know this may seem rudimentary but these are some rebuttals you hear quite often. I don’t think they should be overlooked if not proven wrong. What is your opinion?
#25
“don’t use discrepancies that have already been corrected for and incorporated in the current conservative advisories”
From your own lips you have confirmed that there have been discrepancies so listing more would be of no use to you. But just for the fun of it I will anyway.
Let’s go for the most obvious and that is the fact that scientist disagree at all. If science proved climate change to be a danger, no scientist could dispute the findings. The simple fact that there is a dispute speaks volumes.
You’re joking about the trash thing, right.
#28–Georg==thank you for the entre to inform “J” that I was atleast one earlier poster to use the term “Dolt.”
Its used in response to postings like yours. Good job.
Imagine that, when there’s more sun there’s more warming. Who woulda thunk it?
Scott, horses also caused far more pollution than cars and trucks do, and it’s pollution that causes a greater health threat. Flies and other disease carrying insects feed on horse shit, and mosquitoes breed in the drinking water and in puddles of horse piss, and the puddles in horse tracks.
There’s another factor as well: I own about a dozen gas engines, three in land vehicles. Know how much gas I’ve burned in the last year? About a gallon, and how much pollution is that? (How long will a horse live without it taking a dump or piss?) All these engines cost me is registration and a little for insurance. How much would a horse cost over the same time period?
Sustainability? Which ethnic groups are losing population, and which gaining? Why don’t you go talk to the groups with growing populations instead of the groups that read this blog?
As for the under sea methane release, the planet has been hot enough that such a release should have occurred some time in the last 2.5Million years. Does anyone have a record of such a thing happening?
>“The ice is not melting. Everything you can see with your own eyes is just a liberal lie to raise your taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/334q27
The sun has nothing to do with warming. Everything you can see with your own eyes is just a conservative lie to keep their cars.