-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"This year could be the first ice free arctic in 100,000 years"
- Thread starter Dutchie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SDRick
Active Member
The arctic has been known to have a tropical climate in the past.
Yes, over 2.6 million years ago, when the world was very different from what it is today.
The Last Time the Arctic Was Ice-Free in the Summer, Modern Humans Didn’t Exist
The Last Time the Arctic Was Ice-Free in the Summer, Modern Humans Didn’t Exist
SDRick
Active Member
Yes, this is exactly my point. There can be other factors involved in significant global warming besides human activity.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
What are they? Please provide a link to the peer reviewed research.
All the usual suspects have been ruled out but the radiative forcing caused by CO2 matches almost perfectly.
Krugerrand
Meow
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
In fairness to "skeptics", we were told there was a 100% chance of ice-free Arctic summer in 2007 or 2008. Didn't happen. These kinds of predictions do not help.
With my very limited knowledge of climate/weather I do think we're in line for an ice-free polar summer real soon. The tightening variance between temps at the equator and north pole is slowing the jet stream and allowing for these "polar vorteces" top dive south along with a coinciding warming at the pole. Last winter I can recall a week where it was colder in Philadelphia than Barrow, AK. That's not good.
With my very limited knowledge of climate/weather I do think we're in line for an ice-free polar summer real soon. The tightening variance between temps at the equator and north pole is slowing the jet stream and allowing for these "polar vorteces" top dive south along with a coinciding warming at the pole. Last winter I can recall a week where it was colder in Philadelphia than Barrow, AK. That's not good.
SDRick
Active Member
Research?
It only takes common sense to realize that if there were tropics in the Arctic before there were humans on the planet, chances are something other than human activity can cause climate change.
Sure it did, but the fact is that th change has never been so fast. We are talking about decades now in stead of millions of years in the past. Yes, I'm not too scared about Mother Earth, it will survive. There will be a lot of species who will not have the ability to adapt so quickly. What impact eventually it will have on things we depend on like food supply, fresh water, the ozone layer etc. Nobody knows. This is a very scary experiment we are having with ourselves.
eye.surgeon
Active Member
You're not allowed to invoke common sense by pointing out that the earth has been cooling and warming for billions of years and that our datapoints for temperature monitoring span the length of a period in a copy of War and Peace. You're trying to argue religion with the devout. Claiming that anything other than industrialization could be contributing to global warming isn't challenging their data-- it's questioning their faith. Thanks for trying though on behalf of all the "climate deniers".
Last edited:
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
The subject is neither one of common sense nor of faith. This is science, physics and chemistry, and at a high school, rather than graduate school level. GHG's (such as the CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere in increasing quantities) have been known for 200 years to interfere with the transmission of infrared energy and thereby increase the level of energy retained by the earth and its atmosphere. The magnitude of the effect was known with reasonable precision more than 100 years ago. The final piece of evidence required to make manmade global warming inevitable was provided by Keeling in 1960. The scientific community measured significant impacts and raised serious concerns in the 1980's, and the scientific evidence, understanding and consensus has become stronger with each passing year. The strong scientific consensus on manmade global warming is now shared by every national science academy, science association and national government on the planet.
In this context, the observation that the planet has previously warmed and cooled can most charitably be characterized as embarrassing. (The other alternatives are far darker. See: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx and Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change.)
In this context, the observation that the planet has previously warmed and cooled can most charitably be characterized as embarrassing. (The other alternatives are far darker. See: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx and Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change.)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
To say that there is a massive change with no knowable cause is by definition 'faith'.
CO2 has the change and the physics to be fully responsible; that's physics, that's science... to deny this reality is irresponsible and absurd.
SDRick
Active Member
Fully responsible?
There are many other powerful forces at play in addition to man-made CO2. Even if volcanoes, sun cycles, solar flares, forest fires, magnetic pole reversal etc.had nothing to do with recent climate change, perhaps the CO2 warming that is man-made is offsetting the Ice Age I was told is coming when I was your age.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
I don't care if there's agreement between climate change deniers (see traditional energy industry lobbyists) and the more scientifically-grounded.
But I do dislike disingenuous lobbying. Some of these mouthpieces worked for the tobacco industry and turned scientific validity into a smokescreen over personal liberty. To the detriment of millions. Took decades to undo that disservice to society, and it's still not done. The same fearmongerers resisted seatbelts because less than 1% of occupants might be trapped by their seatbelt. Never mind that they were dead on impact much of that 1% of the time as well.
FUD is dangerous. See the current persecution of locals and actual requests to turn a free model into a pay per use model for everybody. It's disgraceful, really.
As far as climate change goes, again, I don't care if the parties agree. What I do care about are steps going forward on the part of the G7. When Norway, an oil-based economy if ever there was one back in the day, announces that they're banning ICEs in 10 years, there's something up. When Elon Musk points to an image of the US and a speck in Kansas that, if covered with solar panels and supported with batteries, could provide sufficient energy for the country (details omitted for brevity), there's something up.
The conclusion that warming and cooling happen over millennia does not excuse the belching of pollutants into the atmosphere when there are alternatives available. I was just in Bar Harbor, Maine. They have pollution advisories because the shifting jet stream carries pollution from coal-burning states and dumps it on, you guessed it, Cadillac Mountain on Mount Desert Island (where Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park - 2nd-most visited national park in the hemisphere). The elderly, small children, and those otherwise at risk are advised to stay inside.
Take the lobbyists out of the equation as well as the mindless talking points ("I'm not a scientist, but..." given to every GOP mouthpiece at one time). Lobbyists are clever people - they'll materialize in a latest incarnation hawking alt-fuel solutions once the winds shift. Pun intended.
There's money in solutions. There's worsening health in doing nothing. People seem to forget the air quality in San Francisco or Los Angeles in about 1970. It sucked. They didn't whine about global warming/cooling trends - they got rid of leaded gas, became one with the catalytic converter, and put filters/scrubbers on refinery stacks.
In the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach today, the air quality can be beyond awful. And of course it's all exempted. Container ships can burn bunker fuel (the worst grade of the worst) until fairly near the coast, and then they can belch other fuel at the dock. In fairness, a few can support electric at the dock now but not many. Point being there's work to be done, and in the meantime, in the worst pockets of air quality badness, babies have shadows in their lung xrays at 18 months (Wilmington). Nobody cares because it's an economically disadvantaged area. That used to be called "poor".
Say it with me now... "Ohhhhhhm... less pollution is good... Ohhhhhhm". This shouldn't be a political football - it should be common sense.
But I do dislike disingenuous lobbying. Some of these mouthpieces worked for the tobacco industry and turned scientific validity into a smokescreen over personal liberty. To the detriment of millions. Took decades to undo that disservice to society, and it's still not done. The same fearmongerers resisted seatbelts because less than 1% of occupants might be trapped by their seatbelt. Never mind that they were dead on impact much of that 1% of the time as well.
FUD is dangerous. See the current persecution of locals and actual requests to turn a free model into a pay per use model for everybody. It's disgraceful, really.
As far as climate change goes, again, I don't care if the parties agree. What I do care about are steps going forward on the part of the G7. When Norway, an oil-based economy if ever there was one back in the day, announces that they're banning ICEs in 10 years, there's something up. When Elon Musk points to an image of the US and a speck in Kansas that, if covered with solar panels and supported with batteries, could provide sufficient energy for the country (details omitted for brevity), there's something up.
The conclusion that warming and cooling happen over millennia does not excuse the belching of pollutants into the atmosphere when there are alternatives available. I was just in Bar Harbor, Maine. They have pollution advisories because the shifting jet stream carries pollution from coal-burning states and dumps it on, you guessed it, Cadillac Mountain on Mount Desert Island (where Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park - 2nd-most visited national park in the hemisphere). The elderly, small children, and those otherwise at risk are advised to stay inside.
Take the lobbyists out of the equation as well as the mindless talking points ("I'm not a scientist, but..." given to every GOP mouthpiece at one time). Lobbyists are clever people - they'll materialize in a latest incarnation hawking alt-fuel solutions once the winds shift. Pun intended.
There's money in solutions. There's worsening health in doing nothing. People seem to forget the air quality in San Francisco or Los Angeles in about 1970. It sucked. They didn't whine about global warming/cooling trends - they got rid of leaded gas, became one with the catalytic converter, and put filters/scrubbers on refinery stacks.
In the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach today, the air quality can be beyond awful. And of course it's all exempted. Container ships can burn bunker fuel (the worst grade of the worst) until fairly near the coast, and then they can belch other fuel at the dock. In fairness, a few can support electric at the dock now but not many. Point being there's work to be done, and in the meantime, in the worst pockets of air quality badness, babies have shadows in their lung xrays at 18 months (Wilmington). Nobody cares because it's an economically disadvantaged area. That used to be called "poor".
Say it with me now... "Ohhhhhhm... less pollution is good... Ohhhhhhm". This shouldn't be a political football - it should be common sense.
Those other factors did not cause change to occur nearly as rapidly as what we are now experiencing. Before, it took many thousands of years. Now it is happening in just a few centuries, a time period that coincides with the Industrial Age which -- wait for it -- is due to humans burning fossil fuels. That is not a coincidence. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no correlation, but your grandchildren are going to be really pissed off at you for sticking your head in the sand.
Guess all those explorers looking for the Northwest Passage (and often dying in the process) probably just should have waited. Trying to look for the bright side of this...
Northwest Passage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...Look on the bright side of life...woo hoo..."--Life of Brian
Northwest Passage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...Look on the bright side of life...woo hoo..."--Life of Brian
At only 22k each (starting). That'll be 88k for my family of 4. Hey that's enough for another tesla! Think I'll do that instead....
SDRick
Active Member
There is no doubt that when you have 8 billion people on the planet doing anything, including burning fossil fuels it becomes detrimental to the environment. I never stated that there is no correlation between human activity and CO2. Fortunately we are evolving toward renewables which is fantastic from a geopolitical, health and economic standpoint. As to my grandchildren being pissed at me, I am 100% solar, at least to the extent that I do not have an electric bill. I'm looking forward to driving my electric Tesla and believe that recreational wood-burning should be banned in Metropolitan areas (and probably mountain resort areas as well. That clean mountain air can really stink from all the burners getting away from the city).
That all said, I still believe that there are many powerful "natural" forces also affecting this planet in addition to human activity. Research has recently shown that California has had one or two mega-droughts lasting multiple centuries since AD 500. If we go into another mega drought it would be blamed on burning fossil fuel. That may be the case, but it wasn't the cause before. In fact I would say that there have been events in the past that would make a several degrees increase in global temperatures over a couple of centuries a comparative walk in the park. It's all relative.
Similar threads
- Question
