By far the most significant statement in this story is, and I quote:

"More than 90 per cent of Canada's ice shelves have been lost over the past century, with most melting during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s."

What, did global warming start up back then, go into remission and reboot recently? Or is it more likely a part of a natural cycle?


Canada's ice shelves suffered massive erosion over the summer, losing almost one-quarter of their area, researchers have found.
The ice shelves on the north coast of Ellesmere lost 214 square kilometres over the summer, or an area three times larger than Manhattan Island, said a group of researchers from Ontario, Quebec and the United States on Tuesday.
The entire Markham ice shelf broke away in early August and is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean, carving away 50 square kilometres. Two large sections of the Serson ice shelf also broke off, shrinking it by 122 square kilometres or about 60 per cent. The Ward Hunt ice shelf lost 22 square kilometres.
"These substantial calving events underscore the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic,” said Dr. Derek Mueller, who has been studying the shelves at Trent University, in a statement. “These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present.”
Unusually high air temperatures were the main cause of the cracking, the researchers said, and the disintegration trend is likely to continue. Canada's most northerly national park, Quttinirpaaq, is therefore likely to lose its last remaining ice shelf as the largest one remaining, Ward Hunt, continues to crack up.
The disintegration will have an effect on local ecosystems, the researchers said. The Serson ice shelf, for example, had been damming a large freshwater lake, which is now threatened.
"The extent of their loss this season is significant," said Dr. Warwick Vincent, director of Laval University's Centre for Northern Studies, who collaborated on the study. "Unique ecosystems that depend on this ice are on the brink of extinction.”
The Ellesmere ice shelves are made up of ancient sea ice and snow and are up to 4,500 years old. Scientists have measured them to be about 40 metres thick.
More than 90 per cent of Canada's ice shelves have been lost over the past century, with most melting during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.
Temperatures are higher now than they were then, researchers said, which had led to accelerated breakup since 2002.

Ice shelves suffered major melting over summer (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/02/science-ice.html)

Of course it did - love your smarmy tone about what you know almost nothing about than what you read in your right wing blogs....

For about the 5th time - global dimming from industrial aerosols knocked down incoming radiation as heavy industry kicked in post WWII. You DO recall London smogs I assume :rolleyes:
RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/global-dimming-may-have-a-brighter-future/)

As that cleared in the 90s the global dimming diminished and temperatures resumed rising as they have been since the beginning of the industrial age.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/FigA2lrg.gif

It's AGW get over it.

Let's have the whole article

Major ice-shelf loss for Canada

Ward Hunt is the largest of the remnant ice shelves

The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

The floating tongues of ice attached to Ellesmere Island, which have lasted for thousands of years, have seen almost a quarter of their cover break away.
One of them, the 50 sq km (20 sq miles) Markham shelf, has completely broken off to become floating sea-ice.

Researchers say warm air temperatures and reduced sea-ice conditions in the region have assisted the break-up.

"These substantial calving events underscore the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic," said Trent University's Dr Derek Mueller.
"These changes are irreversible under the present climate."

Satellite images show the loss of the Markham Ice Shelf over the last year

Scientists reported in July that substantial slabs of ice had calved from Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest of the Ellesmere shelves.
Similar changes have been seen in the other four shelves.

As well as the complete breakaway of the Markham, the Serson shelf lost two sections totalling an estimated 122 sq km (47 sq miles), and the break-up of the Ward Hunt has continued.

Cold remnants
The shelves themselves are merely remnants of a much larger feature that was once bounded to Ellesmere Island and covered almost 10,000 sq km (3,500 sq miles).

Over the past 100 years, this expanse of ice has retreated by 90%, and at the start of this summer season covered just under 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles).
Much of the area was lost during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.

"Long meltwater lakes" were imaged on the Markham shelf in 2005
Temperatures in the Arctic are now even higher than they were then, and a period of renewed ice shelf break-up has ensued since 2002.
Unlike much of the floating sea-ice which comes and goes, the shelves contain ice that is up to 4,500 years old.

A rapid sea-ice retreat is being experienced across the Arctic again this year, affecting both the ice attached to the coast and floating in the open ocean.
The floating sea-ice, which would normally keep the shelves hemmed in, has shrunk to just under five million sq km, the second lowest extent recorded since the era of satellite measurement began about 30 years ago.

"Reduced sea-ice conditions and unusually high air temperatures have facilitated the ice shelf losses this summer," said Dr Luke Copland from the University of Ottawa.

"And extensive new cracks across remaining parts of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf mean that it will continue to disintegrate in the coming years."

Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.

Where do you think the energy is coming from??? - hot air from the denier crew???.......there's enough of that around.:rolleyes:

From the science I have read, the impact of industrialization started about the turn of the 20th century, and accelerated just after WWII. Thus, in my opinion, these situations in the north are the direct result of global warming. Ice shelfs that took 4000 years to form and were seen last summer are now gone this summer. This is not natural.

This is not natural.

From my layperson's perspective, which seems as valid as any other layperson's perspective on this board, I would say that truth in this statement would be difficult to miss.

Mrjimmy, I watched the CBC National last night about this situation. A Canadian scientist who had been studying one of these ice shelves was shocked to see a part of a shelf that was 10 stories thick last summer disappear this summer.

Ice shelves suffered major melting over summer (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/09/02/science-ice.html)

Mrjimmy, I watched the CBC National last night about this situation. A Canadian scientist who had been studying one of these ice shelves was shocked to see a part of a shelf that was 10 stories thick last summer disappear this summer.

Ice shelves suffered major melting over summer (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/09/02/science-ice.html)

I saw that as well Dr.G. Shocking indeed.

What is even more shocking are those who still doubt that global warming is causing a great change to the overall climate in the world, with hurricanes, flooding, drought, too much/too little rain/sun, etc.

Where do you think the energy is coming from??? - hot air from the denier crew???.......there's enough of that around.:rolleyes:

The scare: In an official press release of the Royal Society, Britain’s oldest taxpayer-funded body, Martin Rees, its president, is quoted as saying: “The science of climate change is complex; however the weight of scientific evidence shows that ‘global warming’ caused by human actions is happening now …”

The truth: The weight of scientific evidence shows that “global warming” began 300 years ago, at the end of an unusually prolonged period of comparative solar inactivity known as the Maunder Minimum, and has continued since then at a near-uniform 1 F per century. Throughout most of that long period of warming, we were not numerous enough or industrially active enough to have made any impact on mean global surface temperatures whatsoever (Akasofu, 2007). The last year which set a record for mean global surface temperature was 1998, when an exceptional but not unprecedented El Nino Southern Oscillation caused a sharp spike in global temperatures as stored heat was released from the world’s oceans to the atmosphere. Note that the instrumental temperature record began only in 1880; and, given the long-run rising trend in global temperatures, higher temperatures at the end of the period of record are scarcely surprising.

Since 1998 no new annual temperature record has been set. Since late 2001, linear-regression trends for all four of the major global-temperature datasets have been downward (Figure 1). The drop in temperature between January 2007 and January 2008 was the greatest since instrumental records began in 1880. Whatever else is happening in the climate, “global warming” is not “happening now” and has not been happening for a decade. No new annual global-temperature record is expected until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008). Not one of the computer models predicted this long period of global cooling. In the month of June 2008, exactly 20 years after James Hansen’s forecast to Congress that global temperatures would rise sharply, global temperatures were actually cooler than they had been when he made the forecast in June 1988.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - "'Global Warming' is happening now!" - Not! (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/global_warming_not_happening.html)

What is even more shocking are those who still doubt that global warming is causing a great change to the overall climate in the world, with hurricanes, flooding, drought, too much/too little rain/sun, etc.

Again I agree Dr.G.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - "'Global Warming' is happening now!" - Not! (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/global_warming_not_happening.html)

Oh, the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation. No, they have never received any funding from Exxon Mobil at all. Nosiree.

Doug, this very reason is why I tend to agree with scientists who do not get funding from corportations for their research. SHRCC are these sorts of grants in my area (Education), and NSERC would be the granting agency for science. These are the projects that I trust the most, and the ones which have been warning us about global warming for years.

NSERC - Welcome to NSERC (http://www.nserc.gc.ca/index.htm)

If we can just get those darn cows to stop farting we'd be fine...and the hippy tree huggers...all that soy causes fumes that destroy the planet... :rolleyes:

I have seen other documentaries whereas they state new ice is developing in other areas. My theory is that over time ice depletes irregardless of temperature...

Don't belive me? Go fill an ice cube tray and leave it in the freezer...let it sit for 6 months, then have another look. OMG! The ice is depleting. Now factor that over 100s of years!

Things fluctuate, but no matter if ice is melting or water is freezing, or temperatures are going up or down - we still shouldn't be spewing out pollution into the environment, at least not as whole hog as we have been over the years. We can do so much to improve the situation, but politics stands in the way of making correct decisions.

I have never disagreed that we should reduce pollution and emissions in general. In fact, I have done so myself, but not because of the global warming cycle that we are currently going through.

If we can just get those darn cows to stop farting we'd be fine...and the hippy tree huggers...all that soy causes fumes that destroy the planet... :rolleyes:

I have seen other documentaries whereas they state new ice is developing in other areas. My theory is that over time ice depletes irregardless of temperature...

Don't belive me? Go fill an ice cube tray and leave it in the freezer...let it sit for 6 months, then have another look. OMG! The ice is depleting. Now factor that over 100s of years!

Wow! Thanks for bestowing this upon us!

Wow! Thanks for bestowing this upon us!

I am a wealth of knowledge. :rolleyes:

I agree with Sinc, despite what the cause is I support a "REALISTIC" approach at reducing our footprint of harm. Carbon taxes, and carbon credits is the worst idea I have ever heard...

From the science I have read, the impact of industrialization started about the turn of the 20th century, and accelerated just after WWII. Thus, in my opinion, these situations in the north are the direct result of global warming. Ice shelfs that took 4000 years to form and were seen last summer are now gone this summer. This is not natural.

Not natural???

Does that mean our actions are being controlled by an intelligence (or lack there of :lmao: ) that is alien to this planet?

Or

like everything else on this planet, are we just doing what we are NATURALLY inclined to do?


BTW: nothing against the fight for the environment but seriously look who's leading the campaign ;)

I'm amazed at the audacity of people living their short lifespans and declaring events to be natural or unnatural based on their tiny perspective.

Not natural as in man-made. 4000 years for an ice shelf to form over 100 feet thick, one year to melt it. That, in my opinion, is not natural, and was caused by our carbon emissions over the past 30-40 years. Sadly, even if Canadians and Americans become conscious of their "carbon footprint", factories in China and India, as well as some in the US and Canada, swamp any gains people make to try and save the planet.

Natural/unnatural

There's that dualistic thinking again.

But believing "what is just is" would make for boring conversation therefore...

it's WRONG :D to believe that the current state of the planet is what it is and is neither "good" nor "bad". Otherwise, imagine the conversation:

Dude 1: "I hear that scientists believe that carbon emissions are causing climate change."

Dude 2: "Yes, apparently that is what some believe."

Dude 1: "Yes."

Dude 2: "Uh-huhn."

Dude 1: ***nods***

"it's WRONG to believe that the current state of the planet is what it is and is neither "good" nor "bad"." I agree. The "current state of the planet" is not good, and getting worse, and unless we do something NOW, it is going to be too late for the next generation.

Not natural as in man-made. 4000 years for an ice shelf to form over 100 feet thick, one year to melt it. That, in my opinion, is not natural, and was caused by our carbon emissions over the past 30-40 years. Sadly, even if Canadians and Americans become conscious of their "carbon footprint", factories in China and India, as well as some in the US and Canada, swamp any gains people make to try and save the planet.

But if man is natural to the planet how is it that what we are making isn't?

We are using what naturally occurs in our environment to produce what we make.

Other life forms do the same. For example, certain ants herd aphids for the "milk" they produce (something like that). Has that always been? Or did that species evolve to that? Supposedly man was without fire for a period of time. Then he figured out how to make it from scratch. Natural or unnatural? If unnatural, how does it differ from the ants?

"it's WRONG to believe that the current state of the planet is what it is and is neither "good" nor "bad"." I agree. The "current state of the planet" is not good, and getting worse, and unless we do something NOW, it is going to be too late for the next generation.

That's a whole other area of discussion.

Are we really concerned about the next generation? Or are we just using that as an excuse to attempt to keep the current idealistic "snap shot" of our environment "safe" until we expire.

Kind of like employee who's been working 30 thirty years at the plant and suddenly there's rumors of major change about to occur. He becomes fearful that his work environment will change for the worse while new employees have no idea (or only know what older employees tell them) and ultimately just accept what's before them.

This is like all the talk about the diminishing song birds due to west nile. IF 30 years from now there are little or no song birds around will the future generations really care? Or will they mostly accept the world for what it is, take what they are given?

I'm not trying to come off like I'm immune to the situation, just wondering aloud about stuff that I often think about.

I'm sure no one will refute the fact that global temps are rising. For simplicity sake, within this there are two schools of thought. One who believes man has nothing to do with it (a natural occurrence) and one who believes he does (an unnatural one).

I'm sure no one will refute the fact that global temps are rising. For simplicity sake, within this there are two schools of thought. One who believes man has nothing to do with it (a natural occurrence) and one who believes he does (an unnatural one).

Agreed mrjimmy.

But why do those who believe in man as the cause keep ridiculing those who don't? All are entitled to hold personal beliefs, are they not?

Not natural as in man-made. 4000 years for an ice shelf to form over 100 feet thick, one year to melt it. That, in my opinion, is not natural, and was caused by our carbon emissions over the past 30-40 years. Sadly, even if Canadians and Americans become conscious of their "carbon footprint", factories in China and India, as well as some in the US and Canada, swamp any gains people make to try and save the planet.

The one thing that I question is that even if you compare 4000 years it is a mere drop in the bucket to earth as a whole. In order to be able to clearly say "it's unnatural" we would have to look at the millions of years that earth existed. What's not to say this hasn't happend before? We really have no way of saying.

Story: My doctor told me I need to get a flu shot; I'm 30. What I told him is that you have no long term proof that a resistence could not form, or what could happen over long term exposure to being injected with dead flu viruses. He said he "studied blah, blah, blah, this would never happen I know microbiology". My point was that despite what they "know", they have no way of saying 100%. They were looking at the bodies reaction over a short period of time, in our case 4000 years. They did not have long term evidence, nor do we.

My point is there really isn't a way of knowing for sure unless you look at the full picture; 4000 years is merely a fraction of a percent...you gotta look back 4.5 million years of earths existence to compare what is naturdal and what is not.

Agreed mrjimmy.

But why do those who believe in man as the cause keep ridiculing those who don't? All are entitled to hold personal beliefs, are they not?

Of course they are. I would contend that within the microcosm of this forum, both sides dish out the criticisms evenly.

I believe that those who feel that GW is manmade are motivated to criticize because of the perceived apathy of those who don't. Their ideology is essentially defeatist in nature. To them, GW is a natural occurrence so there is nothing they can do to change or affect it. Any talk of action on the manmade side leads to anger and resentment on the natural front. Especially when is money is brought into the equation. And how can it not be.

Especially is money is brought into the equation. And how can it not be.

I just made the following post in another thread, but as it turns out, it is relevant here too:

"No matter who enacts a carbon tax, the cost will be born by Joe Citizen, average consumer. Any tax imposed on business or industry is immediately passed on to the public. No execptions.

Anyone who believes a carbon tax will be "revenue neutral" as is the common buzz words used, has holes in his/her head."

"But if man is natural to the planet how is it that what we are making isn't?" Semantics aside (that is one of my areas of expertise), maybe what I should have said is that people and industry and governments are producing various things dangerous to the existence of all living things on this planet. Unless we drastically cut back on these things, then I do not see much hope for much of these living things on Earth to survive. Be it industrial pollution, the conversion of green spaces and farms to to the blight of concrete, to atomic weapons, we need to rethink our creation/use of these things NOW, or there might not be a time when we can be proactive anymore.

^^^
I entirely agree, but also know that there is no impetus to do what is right because "the environment" does not have the filthy lucre that big business and big oil has in their slush fund.

But then, people do not want to sacrafice any of their conveniences. The vast majority of people with giant, gas guzzling SUVs do not need them, nor do they really even use them - but not many will give them up. Sure, we could jack the price of fuel up, but the rich SUV drivers will just cut back on say, a steak dinner - while the average schmoe ends up not being able to afford to drive to work.

This is where something like fuel mileage standards can work wonders, curbing the giant vehicles while allowing for regular people to do their thing. It also pushes the technology. Mileage really did improve as makers struggled to meet standards; and the moment they relaxed the standards, all of the old wasteful methods returned.

Many businesses would benefit from being in buildings where one can actually open the windows to get a nice breeze, rather than having to run a complete life support system all the time. Many businesses would also benefit from using technology, to be able to locate their employees in places where life is much better and less polluting, rather than insisting on the morning migration to the COTU.

A billion years in the future, someone will ask "what caused the extinction of humans", and the answer will be "an utter lack of common sense, plus all of that lead they crammed into shoddy consumer products..."

For about the 5th time - global dimming from industrial aerosols knocked down incoming radiation as heavy industry kicked in post WWII.

Do you really believe that? I doubt anybody can prove such a correlation at any reasonable level of scientific scrutiny.

The computer models are flaky enough trying to correlate GHG and temperature to begin with, never mind trying to prove a minor downward blip on a upward trend of warming. There are huge uncertainties in the computer models. Every year, scientists come out with new information on various factors that drive warming or cooling (e.g. ocean temperature, cloud cover, permafrost melting, etc..). Every year, the media comes out and says, “look here….it’s happening faster than the scientists predicted”. The lack of specific predictive ability and the error (i.e. rate of warming or cooling and ice melting) of computer models should tell you something about the short term accuracy of such models and how it relates to so called, ‘global dimming’.

"But then, people do not want to sacrafice any of their conveniences. The vast majority of people with giant, gas guzzling SUVs do not need them, nor do they really even use them - but not many will give them up. Sure, we could jack the price of fuel up, but the rich SUV drivers will just cut back on say, a steak dinner - while the average schmoe ends up not being able to afford to drive to work.

This is where something like fuel mileage standards can work wonders, curbing the giant vehicles while allowing for regular people to do their thing. It also pushes the technology. Mileage really did improve as makers struggled to meet standards; and the moment they relaxed the standards, all of the old wasteful methods returned." On this we agree, Evan. Along with me, my wife and son are all trying to cut down on our carbon footprint.

"But if man is natural to the planet how is it that what we are making isn't?" Semantics aside (that is one of my areas of expertise), maybe what I should have said is that people and industry and governments are producing various things dangerous to the existence of all living things on this planet. Unless we drastically cut back on these things, then I do not see much hope for much of these living things on Earth to survive. Be it industrial pollution, the conversion of green spaces and farms to to the blight of concrete, to atomic weapons, we need to rethink our creation/use of these things NOW, or there might not be a time when we can be proactive anymore.

Man being able to create fire was dangerous since he could then "accidently" burn donw an entire forest and most of it's occupants.

Spears with metal tips took a toll certain animals that prior to int's invention would have been much more difficult to hunt.

Guns.

Missiles.

Pollution.

Disease.

I would hazard a guess that man has been dangerous to himself and his environment since "the beginning". While we often try to do "good" we seem destined to do as much "bad" just the same.

Certain countries have, in the past 60 years or so, gained the potential of destroying ALL living things on Earth. This has not been within the grasp of people since life first started on Earth.

I'm sure no one will refute the fact that global temps are rising.

That's simply not true any longer.

That's simply not true any longer.

Hmm, I do like fishing....

Meaning some will refute? Some that perhaps didn't refute in the past? Ice melting due to the cold? Perhaps it's dry ice.

Rather simplistic yes but it's hot out there.

That's simply not true any longer.

and you're simply wrong. :rolleyes: denier Koolaid overdose again I see.

Why is the sealevel rising and accelerating

Why are the glaciers melting.....and the melt accelerating...

Right wing hot air....maybe.

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/admin/sealevelgraphic1.jpg

See levels rise | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/1/14411/92880)

somebody peeing in the oceans :rolleyes:

Like a canary in a coal mine.

"Scientists are blaming the decline in Arctic sea ice on rising concentrations of greenhouse gases that have elevated temperatures from one to four degrees, as well as strong natural variability in Arctic sea ice, the researcher said.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global warming because those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land surfaces."

Melting of Arctic sea ice shatters record (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/09/21/science-arctic-ice.html)

This was written about a year ago, and things have gotten even worse in just one year.

Arctic ice melt does not raise sealevel.
It does set up a feedback loop that traps more heat tho.

TELLURIDE – Greenland is melting much faster than anyone predicted. This Arctic country, a Climate Change Indicator, is a vital player not just in our understanding and monitoring of climate change. It has a direct influence in how such changes will manifest across the globe.

For those of us in Colorado, what does this rapid, accelerated decrease in the Greenland Continental Icecap mean?

Climatologist Jason E. Box, Ph.D., with the Byrd Polar Research Center, has spent the last 14 years monitoring Greenland’s massive ablation.

Box will be coming to Telluride to present his research, and answer questions, on Sept. 4, at 7 p.m. at the Sheridan Opera House. The event is sponsored by the Telluride Institute, and is free and open to the public.

After 17 expeditions in Greenland, Box has documented some of the most startling ablation events, including the largest iceberg calving ever filmed: Eight square kilometers of ice, a half-mile thick, disintegrating in 90 minutes. Picture a city of skyscraper-sized ice vanishing in an hour-and-a-half.

“Estimates of sea level rise are now known to be significantly underestimated,” said Box. “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] projected sea level rise of around one-and-a-half feet. But this did not take into account the profound ice sheet sensitivity now documented [in Greenland]. Sea level rise could be double, or more [than these predictions]. My best guess is a sea level rise of between three and six feet by the end of this century.”

This will have implications for global populations during our lifetimes. Coastal populations will have to move from low-lying areas, creating sociopolitical turmoil in countries like Bangladesh – one of the most populous, poorest and low-lying countries in the world. Parts of Florida could disappear.

Box sees a vast expenditure on a global scale to “hold back the sea.”

“We will end up spending a lot of money building a lot of flood breakers and sea walls,” he said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “I’m concerned the cost that the U.S. and the world will spend on mitigating sea level rise will slow down global economies. Technology exists to hold back the sea, but it’s very expensive. We need to act now to prevent sea level rise.”

In 2002, monitoring of the Greenland Icecap showed annual losses of 100 cubic kilometers of ice, alarming the scientific community, a bigger and faster loss than had been predicted.

In 2007, however, an even larger ice loss – of more than 300 cubic kilometers (300 gigatons) – was documented.

This is hugely significant for the world at large. No one really knows what will happen as a result – from fresh water plumes altering the Atlantic Ocean’s great gyres (which keep Europe temperate), to dramatic sea level rise. Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted an expected sea level rise of two feet over the course of this century. That’s significant enough to inundate areas like Washington, D.C., much of North Carolina, parts of the Gulf Coast, and Florida. It will alter global coastlines like never before. But this may be a low estimate: Even the IPCC noted in its important study last year that, “Larger values [in sea-level rise] cannot be excluded.”

Although Colorado doesn’t have to worry about the direct effects of rising sea levels, the economic ramifications will surely affect us all. Moreover, the warming inherent in climate change, while increasing precipitation events, will only shorten the ski season. Some estimates have quoted a reduction in the ski season by as much as one-third or more. In a state whose majority of revenues come from winter sports, that’s a lot of lost revenue – potentially one third of the winter take, or more than one-sixth of statewide annual revenue.

A further problem may result in the release of CO2 and methane from thawing permafrost regions, creating what is known as runaway climate heating, a positive-feedback loop that spirals climate crisis out of control.

“Melt down in the Artic will likely release a lot of carbon in permafrost in northern Eurasia and Canada and carbon in methane hydrates,” Box said. “This could contribute to runaway climate heating. We could double atmospheric CO2 in one- or two-hundred years. Then, it’s too late. This is the doomsday scenario, but we’re right on course for that. We have to change course now.”

Box noted that a panoply of strategies must be enacted to be effective to preempt runaway climate heating. Conservation, he said, is not enough. A systems approach that involves renewable energy, reforestation, geo-engineering, as well as conservation is needed.

“Conservation is not going to come close to the type of action we need to avert disaster. Conservation at best buys us some time. We need a proactive, portfolio response,” he said, including wind, solar and geothermal energy systems acting together to augment mitigation.

“Science has been looking for a silver bullet to address the climate crisis. But what we need is silver buckshot.”

His presentation Sept. 4 at the Opera House will be full of satellite images, time-lapse photography and graphic products. This is a world first: much of this imagery has yet to be published or released to the public.

Box has been featured in the New York Times, on CBS News, NBC’s Today Show, and the Discovery Channel, among others. This February 60 Minutes will be flying to Greenland with Box to film a special on climate change.

He will show footage of his research, outline repercussions across the world, answer questions, and offer some potential solutions to deal with an accelerating problem, now more evident than ever.
Climate Change: The Next Generation: Climatologist Dr. Jason E. Box, Byrd Polar Research Center, to give talk on Greenland ice sheet melt (http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/08/climatologist-dr-jason-e-box-byrd-polar.html)

OK, but Antarctic melt does, because the land mass is above sea level.

Whatever side you choose to take, I find it interesting that Dr. G. can maintain decorum and make a point while MacDoc continues with the name calling and slurs that belittle his own points.

"denier Koolaid overdose again I see', indeed. Ho hum. :lmao:

MacDoc, we see parts of Greenland drift on past us each year in the form of icebergs.

Sinc, I have never seen any reason to resort to name calling. If someone gets to obnoxious to things I say, I just ignore commenting to this person. Resonable people may have reasonable debates over differences. The use of "slurs" is just not my style. Paix, mon ami.

Yes it does but the Antarctic has two factors that are different than the Arctic.

It's a polar continent and it has an ozone hole above it reducing temperature impacts from the rest of the atmosphere.

The western Antarctic has shown dramatic ice loss - but more moisture in the air ( warmer air = more moisture carrying ) has meant snow in the interior desert where there was none before which partially offsets the western decline.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/0126_04.jpg

Antarctic Glaciers Melting More Quickly

by David Perlman
Antarctica's massive coastal glaciers are quickly melting into the sea as the oceans around the continent grow warmer - and the pace of ice loss is speeding up. An international satellite network measuring the thickness of the glaciers as they shrink year by year has found that the glaciers have melted so rapidly during the past 10 years that the continent is losing almost as much ice as Greenland, according to researchers gathering the satellite data.

The team from Chile, England and the Netherlands is led by Eric Rignot, a radar engineer and glacier specialist at UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who has watched the shrinking glaciers and gathered data for the past 15 years from Canadian, Japanese and European polar-orbiting satellites.

Antarctic Glaciers Melting More Quickly | CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6643/)

If and when the hole closes - look for a rapid catch up and that's maybe why the the head of the climatology program in Australia is calling for a 4 METER rise by 2100.

Sea levels could rise 4m this century: climate expert - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2339924.htm)

and THAT was a total shocker for someone that senior to go on record. :eek:

Dr. G., in response to your comments about warming being ‘obviously’ anthropogenic, I have the following comments.

Our planet has continually gone through cycles of climate change. The obvious point here is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Similarly, green house gases are natural and their levels have fluctuated significantly over hundreds of millions of years. The levels of CO2 have been much, much higher historically than what they presently are at.

Assessing past rates of climate change in our climate record (tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago) isn’t too straightforward. We simply don’t know that much about how quickly these effects occur. Some data suggests that climate changes can occur quite abruptly. So we can’t assume things are happening fast without a good baseline.

The science on climate change really comes down to the correlation between CO2 and temperature historically. I believe the data collected here is accurate. What we know less about is cause and effect. Did temperature cause higher CO2 levels, or did CO2 cause higher temperature? For most science topics, one can prepare a hypothesis and then test it against scrutiny. The problem with our planet and climate is that it is extremely complex with lots of factors. The only way to test the hypothesis is via computer modeling. But, we still don’t understand all the factors that play a role in our climate and how they interact. That’s why the computer models haven’t predicted the level of melting that occurred in the last number of years. That level of accuracy just isn’t possible at present.

Considering the above, our observation of ‘fast’ melting means little to nothing.

CBC Radio 1 is having an interesting piece on right now about the effects of climate change and global warming on the Bow River in Alberta.

The way the CBC time-shifts, we should still be able to hear the full article later.

Oh, BTW, I seriously dislike (hate) the changes to CBC2.

First the afternoon drive was corrupted, now it's the morning's turn.

Not a happy camper.

"Oh, BTW, I seriously dislike (hate) the changes to CBC2." My wife and I agree with you, John. But this is getting off the topic.

Back to the Bow River and the drinking water for southern Alberta, I foresee a day when eyes again turn east and they see all of the lakes here in NL that are nowhere near any populations, and that are draining directly into the Atlantic Ocean. A US company wanted to "tap" into this water and fill up tankers to take it to the US. However, under NAFTA, if NL gave them the right to tap into this water, and if we ever wanted this water for our own use, we would have to compensate them to the tune of $1 million US a month. Luckily, the federal government stepped in and prevented NL from making this sort of deal, since it had implications in the rest of Canada.

Oh bullshit VD - agitprop for deniers who don't to take responsibility to change

WHY IS THE SEA LEVEL RISING???????? and accelerating?

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change. “This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on: “This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Professor of Oceanography
Adjunct Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
(Physical and Environmental, Ph.D., Harvard University, 1970)
Richard H. Gammon - University of Washington Dept of Chemistry (http://depts.washington.edu/chem/people/faculty/gammon.html)

Even the IPCC report in 2007 is not keeping up with the ACTUAL measured pace of change.....as these 130 Canadian climate scientists point out....

Scientists make climate plea to Harper
Mike De Souza , Canwest News Service
Published: Tuesday, June 24, 2008

OTTAWA - More than 100 leading climate scientists have launched a new offensive challenging the federal government's climate change plan and urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper along with other Canadian politicians to accelerate efforts to crack down on human activity linked to global warming.

In an open letter sent to the prime minister, opposition leaders and Canadian premiers on Tuesday afternoon, the scientists warned that the existing national climate change policies would fail to address the dangerous impacts of global warming. They also warned that new research suggests human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could do more damage to the earth than was previously predicted in the last international assessment of climate change science from 2007.

"New analyses show that global greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, sea level(s) rising and Arctic sea ice decreasing faster than projected only a few years ago," said the letter, signed by 130 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors. "Water shortages are predicted in the western Prairies, the Okanagan and in the Great Lakes basin. Earlier targets to avoid human interference with the climate system are now seen to be inadequate."

They're all deluded eh VD and you know better.....sure....

••••

Fast melting means just what it says.. fast and accelerating. and these people have to deal with and are rightfully pissed......

To the UN General Assembly & Security Council:
We, citizens all around the world, share the small island states' concern that climate change threatens international peace and security. Action is needed now, and global climate negotiations must accelerate to deliver a strong deal in time to prevent catastrophe, as well as protecting those forced to relocate as a result of global warming. Our common future requires the United Nations to address the international climate crisis with at least as much urgency as it gives to matters of war and peace.

Small Islands to World: S.O.S. (http://www.avaaz.org/en/sos_small_islands/?cl=124157671&v=2102)

and VD you think you are better equipped for judging the situation than the head of the Climate Change Dept for Australia.........hubris or what..... :eek:

Oh bullshit VD - agitprop for deniers who don't to take responsibility to change

'Nother insult.

They're all deluded eh VD and you know better.....sure....

'Nother insult.

and VD you think you are better equipped for judging the situation than the head of the Climate Change Dept for Australia.........hubris or what..... :eek:

Final childish insult.


Tsk, tsk. :rolleyes:

Oh bullshit VD - agitprop for deniers who don't to take responsibility to change

WHY IS THE SEA LEVEL RISING???????? and accelerating?

Because the earth is warming. This is not proof of causation, but it definitely gives me reason to question your understanding of the concept.

Did I deny anthropogenic climate change anywhere in any posts? Ever? Please feel free to show where I have denied this.

In case you forgot, science is about formulating hypotheses and testing said hypothesis. The process of questioning makes the underlying science stronger. It really makes me concerned when scientists come out and say that questioning is inappropriate. It is always appropriate.

Anthropogenic climate change is nowhere near a proven hypothesis as the moon being round or cigarettes causing cancer. Not even close. It is a relatively new hypothesis and it suffers from the innate difficulty of testing the hypothesis. You can’t create multiple earths and change one variable at a time to get an understanding. Rather, we are only left with computer models and looking at the climate record, which only go so far in testing the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

If things are happening faster than the model (e.g. faster melting), then the model is flawed. That means our understanding of the systems has significant error. It doesn’t matter what side the error is on (e.g. more or less melting)… an error is an error. And like all numerical modelers, the next step is to tweak all your variables to make the model fit the past. And then at the end of it, they say, what a great model. That is until it gets the future wrong again. Been there, done that. I know numerical modeling. Do you?

To help you understand this, imagine importing a stock market graph into excel and have it calculate a mathematical formula for the curve. Excel has the ability to perfectly describe this curve by adding lots of factors. Yet, it would still be useless in predicting the future.

What are you going to say 4 years from now if indeed we are in a temporary cooling period?

What are you going to say 4 years from now if indeed we are in a temporary cooling period?

Brrrrr ? ;)

agitprop for deniers who don't to take responsibility to change

I've noticed a lot more healthy skepticism of global warming and associated theories in the general population. When you see Readers Digest running articles on how to avoid having your budget "greenwashed," you know that some of the extreme voices have lost the ear of the public and must return to clawing at their hair shirts in the wilderness.

I've noticed a lot more healthy skepticism of global warming and associated theories in the general population. When you see Readers Digest running articles on how to avoid having your budget "greenwashed," you know that some of the extreme voices have lost the ear of the public and must return to clawing at their hair shirts in the wilderness.

For many its a case of "where's the beef?" After what seemed like one of the coldest, snowiest, longest winter's in memory and a summer where you rarely broke a sweat and the air conditioner sat idle, global warming skepticism was bound to rise.

Cheers
MacGuiver

Certain countries have, in the past 60 years or so, gained the potential of destroying ALL living things on Earth. This has not been within the grasp of people since life first started on Earth.


Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the source of the "problem".

I believe that based on man's history "the potential" to destroy all living things on Earth has always been with us. The difference is up until recent times we never had the tools, but I believe we've always had the mind for it.

I see the level of science knowledge is up to it's usual National Pest standard......

...McG - you've never heard of ENSO clearly given the ill-informed comment about this last winter.....DESPITE that - Arctic ice is now the second lowest extent and may yet break last year's record.....

Stuff this beef down your throat....

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_Figure2_thumb.png

Conditions in context
In a typical year, the daily rate of ice loss starts to slow in August as the Arctic begins to cool. By contrast, in August 2008, the daily decline rate remained steadily downward and strong.
The average daily ice loss rate for August 2008 was 78,000 square kilometers per day (30,000 square miles per day). This is the fastest rate of daily ice loss that scientists have ever observed during a single August. Losses were 15,000 square kilometers per day (5,800 square miles per day) faster than in August 2007, and 27,000 square kilometers per day (10,000 square miles per day) faster than average.
This August's rapid ice loss reflects a thin sea ice cover that needed very little additional energy to melt out.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

and that graph would be as of Sept 3 and still heading down.

••
and from Hadley who are clearly also fed up with the bull pucky from the denier crowd..

Hadley Center to delayers (this means you Pielke): We’re warming, not cooling

The deniers/delayer-1000s cite recent UK Hadley Center data to promote their “climate is cooling” disinformation. Even Roger Pielke, Jr. is peddling this nonsense with his recent inanely titled post, “Update on Falsification of Climate Predictions.” Falsification? Gimme a break!

The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 – those are also the 8 warmest years in the NASA record, in a different order, starting with 2005, then 2007 tied with 1998). Where the heck is the cooling trend? Shame on you, Pielke for lending your name and website to this delayer-1000 nonsense.

It is only fair to ask what the Hadley Center thinks its data shows (much as we’ve heard NASA explain that its data shows unequivocal warming). Answer: they believe it unequivocally shows we are in a warming trend, including this decade. They make one of the best analytical points I have seen in the whole discussion of this cooling nonsense:

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999.

[And this explanation doesn’t even note that total solar irradiance in 1999 was 0.3 W/m2 higher than in 2007, which might actually reduce 2007’s temperature relative to 1999 by some 0.1°C!]

This comes from a terrific page titled, “Climate Change Myths” by Prof. John Mitchell, Chief Scientist at the Met Office. One of the myths he debunks is “Myth 6 — 1998 was the warmest year in the global annual temperature record and this has led some to claim that temperatures have been decreasing ever since.” Here is his reply — it is worth reprinting and reading in its entirety:

1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El-Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.

The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph (right, top) of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties which are shown as thin black bars. Recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hadley.gif

Prof. Mitchell then makes the comparison that 2007 was 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. Finally, he writes:

The diagram ranks global temperatures for the last 150 years. It can be seen that the 17 warmest years all occur in the last 20 years.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hadley2.gif

So, yes, the planet is in a major warming trend whose dominant cause is human emissions — even recently.

Does anybody doubt that when we get out of the La Niña and the recent solar irradiance minimum, we will see a string of very hot years? And, indeed, a major article published in Science magazine this summer made this very point, which I blogged on. As I wrote, they noted:

Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

They further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,” which means they predict a 50% chance that the warming from 2004 to 2014 will be 3/8 that of the warming of the previous century!

By the way,[b] the Hadley Center also debunks these myths:

* Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming.
* Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
* Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming.
* Myth 4 - The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate.
* Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.

Anyone who still believes these myths — or wants to see a simple scientific debunking of them — should refer to the Hadley center website.
Met Office: Climate change - the big picture (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html)

••

Why is the sea level rising???? :rolleyes:

Hey, MacDoc--nice work quoting this stuff from the lefty "Center for American Progress."

They love the idea of using global warming myths to redistribute income. Try again. OK?