Global Warming Cont...

getting back to the topic of this thread, here is something about the effect of global warming on the ice up in the arctic ocean:

September 28, 2005
Arctic Ice Cap Shrank Sharply This Summer, Experts Say
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The floating cap of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank this summer to what is probably its smallest size in a century, continuing a trend toward less summer ice that is hard to explain without attributing it in part to human-caused global warming, various experts on the region said today.

The findings are consistent with recent computer simulations showing that a buildup of smokestack and tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to a profoundly transformed Arctic later this century in which much of the once ice-locked ocean is routinely open water in summers.

It also appears that the change is becoming self sustaining, with the increased open water absorbing solar energy that would be reflected back into space by bright white ice, said Ted A. Scambos, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which compiled the data along with NASA.

"Feedbacks in the system are starting to take hold," Dr. Scambos said. "The consecutive record-low extents make it pretty certain a long-term decline is underway."

The North Pole ice cap always grows in winter and shrinks in the summer, but the new summer low, measured on Sept. 19th, was 20 percent below the average minimum ice extent measured from 2000 back to 1978, when precise satellite mapping of the ice began, the snow and ice center reported.

The difference between the average ice area and the area that persisted this summer was about 500,000 square miles, or twice the size of Texas, the scientists said.

This summer was the fourth in a row with ice extents sharply below the long-term average, said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the snow and ice center and a professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

A natural cycle in the polar atmosphere, the Arctic Oscillation, that contributed to the reduction in Arctic ice in the past was not a significant factor right now, he said, adding that rising temperatures driven by accumulating greenhouse-gas emissions had to be playing a role.

He and other scientists said that there could be more variability ahead, including some years in which the sea ice will grow. But they have found few hints that other factors, like more Arctic cloudiness in a warming world, might reverse the trend.

"With all that dark open water, you start to see an increase in Arctic Ocean heat storage," Dr. Serreze said. "Come autumn and winter that makes it a lot harder to grow ice, and the next spring you're left with less and thinner ice. And it's easier to lose even more the next year."

The result, he said, is that the Arctic is "becoming a profoundly different place than we grew up thinking about."

Other experts on Arctic ice and climate disagreed on details. For example, Ignatius G. Rigor at the University of Washington said that the change was likely due to a mix of factors, including residual influences from the atmospheric cycle.

But he agreed with Dr. Serreze that the influence from greenhouse gases had to be involved.

"The global warming idea has to be a good part of the story," Dr. Rigor said. "I think we have a different climate state in the Arctic now."

Quite a few magazine articles out this week on Global Warming. I had been saying the Gulf was 2-3 degrees warmer than normal. That's incorrect. Gulf water temps were 4-5 degrees above normal. Water temps worldwide are up 1.8 degrees since 1970.

But noooo, we dont have any problems. Carry on as normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Quite a few magazine articles out this week on Global Warming. I had been saying the Gulf was 2-3 degrees warmer than normal. That's incorrect. Gulf water temps were 4-5 degrees above normal. Water temps worldwide are up 1.8 degrees since 1970.

But noooo, we dont have any problems. Carry on as normal.

---

Look back as far as the records go prior to 1970. At some point you will see the same pattern that we have seen for the last several years. My debate with you all along is that you and your sources only want to pick and choose most convenient time frame to make a point. Your points are well taken, but they must include COMPLETE data not selected data.

And your point in well taken but I think you know deep down that I am more right about this than you are. I haven't been picking and choosing anything. My sources have been the information I have come across. NOAA, newspaper articles, interviews on TV, etc... Perhaps where we get some of our info is partly responsible for our different view but I have even seen scientists who used to scoff at the notion that GW is responsible for these ferocious storms start to change their tune.


Record warm temps are just that. The water in the Gulf was warmer this year than any year on record, going back to the mid 1800's. We don’t have reliable stats before that; I wish we did because I think it would only strengthen my point. 4 of the 6 warmest summers EVER(again, since the 1800's) have occured since 1998.


On average a "major" hurricane strikes the US about every 3-5 years. We have had 5 in the last 14 months. Coincidence? Statistical anomaly? Perhaps, but I just don’t think so.


To clarify, the total number of storms per year has been relatively constant. What no one can deny is the number of major storms per year. I'm not sure from what year to now(I think 1970 and I will check) but worldwide per year major storm have increased from a frequency of 9 per year to 18. That's got to get your attention.


Kartina is going to cost at least $250 billion. Whether I'm right or your right we just can't afford to not know anymore.




Signed,


Stuck in record high temps in San Antonio for the 5th straight day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

On average a "major" hurricane strikes the US about every 3-5 years. We have had 5 in the last 14 months. Coincidence? Statistical anomaly? Perhaps, but I just don’t think so.

---

and no year is average. these things fluctuate. is this a record year for hurricanes? not yet. i don't know what the record is, but even if this season beats all on record, the history is relatively short, so all it says is that it's the most we've recorded -- it proves no trend. as for the rest of your argument, the earth is warmer this year than it was 30 years ago. nobody denies that. the question up for debate is whether that is unusual, and if so, whether human activity is responsible.

take a step back from the alarming reports and think about how little we actually know about climate, and especially climate history and future prediction. we don't have a reliable record of global temperatures until just a few years ago. temperatures are rising at about half the rate predicted by computer models. heck, computer models can't even predict which direction a hurricane will go in the next few hours -- how can they presume to predict the effect of "greenhouse gases" -- especially when their calculations don't even match current trends? as for climate history, all we can do is guess based on some spotty and dubious indicators whose accuracy is exaggerated by the scientists who study them (90% of whom are only studying them for the specific purpose of proving man-made global warming). even these indicators, when patched together, show a history of very widely varying temperatures -- much higher in magnitude than what we are seeing now. your problem is that you believe the politically motivated statements that have been made by certain scientists claiming that the case is closed and the verdict is in. to be fully informed, you must listen to both sides of the argument, rather than simply believing one side when they say the other side has nothing to offer.

I have even seen scientists who used to scoff at the notion that GW is responsible for these ferocious storms start to change their tune. - Alta
LOL! Did you mean Global Warming or George W?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

I have even seen scientists who used to scoff at the notion that GW is responsible for these ferocious storms start to change their tune. - Alta
LOL! Did you mean Global Warming or George W?

---

BOTH :D

Arkansasbob,

The people out there denying that Global warming is having an effect are the one's with the political agenda, not me.

The only thing in your post that is meaningful is that we dont entirely understand global warming and its implications. But shouldnt we error on the side of caution, give mother nature the benefit of the doubt? She is trying to tell us something and her voice is getting louder and louder each year.

90% trying to prove Global Warming? LOL. Come on man, its a done deal Global warming is real, the only question is what are the consequences, and those are becoming very apparant to anyone who is NOT biased.

"show a history of very widely varying temperatures -- much higher in magnitude than what we are seeing now" Again, sorry I cant pull tempature records from 10,000 BC. All I can do is examine the records we have; 4 of the 6 warmest summers on record since 1998...... Gulf temps and global seas temps at record highs.....major storms DOUBLING in 40 years..... What is so hard to understand here?

What was causing the global warming in 1936. They had a hot year that year. The dems were in then, so I don't have an explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soonerdawg

What was causing the global warming in 1936. They had a hot year that year. The dems were in then, so I don't have an explanation.

---

You can choose to be ridiculous if you want to but after this I'm only going to respond to rational posts.

Why dont you take a look at this link and try and respond. Sorry, but your 1936 reference is, well, ridiculous:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...s/triad-pg.gif

I'm not going to say that global warming is not happening, but I don't know if global warming can realistically be tied to hurricanes or atleast to stronger hurricanes happening more frequently...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.

DecadeSaffir-Simpson Category1All
1,2,3,4,5Major
3,4,5123451851-1860855101961861-1870861001511871-1880767002071881-1890894102251891-1900855302181901-19101044001841911-19201044302171921-1930533201351931-1940476111981941-19508691024101951-1960815301781961-1970354111461971-1980624001241981-1990914101551991-2000364011452001-20044221093 1851-2004109727118327392Average Per Decade7.14.74.61.20.217.76.0
1 Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.



U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.

DecadeSaffir-Simpson Category1All
1,2,3,4,5Major
3,4,5123451851-1860855101961861-1870861001511871-1880767002071881-1890894102251891-1900855302181901-19101044001841911-19201044302171921-1930533201351931-1940476111981941-19508691024101951-1960815301781961-1970354111461971-1980624001241981-1990914101551991-2000364011452001-20044221093 1851-2004109727118327392Average Per Decade7.14.74.61.20.217.76.0
1 Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.




This is taken from
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
by
Jerry D. Jarrell(retired), Max Mayfield, and Edward N. Rappaport
NOAA/NWS/ Tropical Prediction Center
Miami, Florida

Christopher W. Landsea
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Miami, Florida

This is taken from
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
by
Jerry D. Jarrell(retired), Max Mayfield, and Edward N. Rappaport
NOAA/NWS/ Tropical Prediction Center
Miami, Florida

Christopher W. Landsea
NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division
Miami, Florida

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sik-m-boi

larry king is five-hundred-and-seventy-two years old...hang it up man. i mean he was the man back in the day but now...

for all you insomniacs out there: larry king is one of the most potent sedatives still legal in th US...i've never made it through a whole show...i wind up watching the insides of my eyelids instead.

---

Sik, have you seen his wife lately? Whoa baby!!!!! thank goodness for Viagra and Cialis even some of you old farts might be able to score a trophy like Larry's one day.

Losing ice twice the size of Texas. That is a bunch of damn ice. If you think that isn't going to cause some severe weather changes then you must be Arkansasbob.

I am no longer going to get into this GW thing. Some people are never going to be convinced until their backyard in NLa is part of the Gulf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TECH88

Sik, have you seen his wife lately? Whoa baby!!!!! thank goodness for Viagra and Cialis even some of you old farts might be able to score a trophy like Larry's one day.

---

Well, you gotta have tons of cash too. Look at Trump, he married a model, and it isnt because of his dashing good looks and great personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Losing ice twice the size of Texas. That is a bunch of damn ice. If you think that isn't going to cause some severe weather changes then you must be Arkansasbob.

I am no longer going to get into this GW thing. Some people are never going to be convinced until their backyard in NLa is part of the Gulf.

---

Very well put. I'm done with this thread too after I let you guys chew on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...eut/index.html

"Atmospheric temperatures in the remote state have risen 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 3 degrees Celsius) over the past five decades, according to the recently released Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a comprehensive study by scientists from eight nations." ....

Read the whole thing. If you dont think something needs to be done then your either just not very bright or you just dont give a crap about what happens in future generations...