Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Unprecedented Greenland Ice Melt Stuns NASA Scientists


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
260 replies to this topic

#241 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:34 PM

A lot of what you have said in this post has happened in my country , the government did not campaign on a carbon tax but as soon as it was re- elected announced that it would enact one on July 1st 2012 which it has done.
The conservatives have been fear mongering since the tax was announced and i believe this is where the problems lie .
governments and oppositions are there to act in the best interests of the people who elect them and it was obvious that either liberal or labour was going to introduce the tax if they got into government , because it was at the time what many australians wanted .
so because the conservative's lost they have attacked this policy simply because it seemed politically expedient to do so , they have sided with the mining industry and have/ are running a FUD [fear , uncertainty, doubt ] campaign.
this is not in the best interest's of the people they represent or for the other people we share this planet with.


Well here in Canada where a LOT of people work in the oil and gas industry, or drive a heck of a lot, or use alot of energy to heat their homes you don't need to be that right wing to oppose a carbon tax!

Heck, even the leader of the provincial NDP is in favour of a natural gas pipleline to the coast/liquid natural gas facility/export mechanism on the north coast. Sure it creates a ton of CO2 but even he isn't so stupid to not see all the union jobs and government royalties!

#242 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:56 PM

Hey I like to stir it up... All this info/data is great and I'm glad Scientists are alarmed! they have to be can't use words like Scientists are Baffled. No one would listen use words like Alarming and unprecedented people get scared.

Fear sells.

The only way to impact Mankind's "foot print" on the Earth is to get rid of Mankind. Man will always continue to advance explore exploit that's how we survive as a species, Not all this other non sense about taxing carbon/ carbon credits ect ect banning plastic bags, $5 dollar light bulbs jumping up and down screaming DENIER! DENIER! ect ect... that does diddly squat except cost money which non of us have.

We are a species on this planet and like every other species before and after us we will be extinct. it's going to happen either by an asteroid or a super Volcano, maybe another ice age or maybe an All out Nuclear war but I doubt that one or a super virus that wipes out a couple Billion maybe the Sun spits at us and we're mess up by the radiation But unless these things happen anytime soon we will be here for a while anyway a few hundred thousand years, millions maybe? maybe only a few hundred or thousand.

So I am not alarmed when some ice melts when it's summer... that ice will freeze and might get thicker in 6 months.


I am going to give you a +1 solely because of this statement. Fear does indeed sell. You scare the hell out of people for long enough, no matter what the arena or agenda, and they'll pretty much believe whatever the hell you say, regardless of whether there is evidence or not. Well said.
Posted Image

#243 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:56 PM

If 'weather cycle' is a catch-all, then what does that make 'weather event'?

And I don't know if you've noticed, but the U.S has been seemingly having '1 in a 100 year storms' for the last few years, and they know the real physical causes of them each time.

Like I said, weather patterns are related to climate trends, and in this case there isn't evidence to firmly say whether the weather was part of a natural cycle of melting that occurs every 150 years, or part of a short term extreme melt event related to a known global warming trend that is most extreme at higher lattitudes. We'll have to wait and see if this occurs again, or doesn't to see if it's a one-off and part of a cycle cause by yet unknown real physical causes that occur every 150 years or a new extreme weather event pattern that will occur yearly with similar or worse melt rates.

There isn't and hasn't been enough data collected and understood just yet, from what i've read, to close the book on this, either way.





You can always look at the weather map and point out the specific physical reason that leads to a particular weather event ( blocking highs, wind, moisture.. what not), but you don't have a physical explanation as to why 1 in 100 year storms happens 1 in 100 years and not 1 in 50 years.

Effectively extreme weather events such as heat waves (that caused the melting) are effectively random events. Toss a coin long enough and you'll get 10 heads in a row.

For a rare event and if the record is relatively short, extreme events can appear to have periodicity, yet the underlying mechanism is random.

In contrast to random events, a cycle has periodicity that is determined by underlying some physical process. Some like the diurnal and seasonal cycle is simply set by the earth's rotation and orbit, while things like El Nino Southern Oscillation is set by atmosphere/ocean coupling, which changes over the course of 1-2 years, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation, where it is determined by adjustment of large ocean gyres that takes places over decadal time scales.

In addition, in a cycle, what goes up must come down. For diurnal cycle you can't have two days in a row without going through a night. For ENSO it is not a simple cycle, but in general cold and warm phases alternate. It is not true for heat events. You can have several heat waves without a cold spell in between.


Ultimately what I want to stress is that by calling it a cycle has certain implications, and therefore must be supported by more evidence then what we have.

#244 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,230 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:23 PM

I am going to give you a +1 solely because of this statement. Fear does indeed sell. You scare the hell out of people for long enough, no matter what the arena or agenda, and they'll pretty much believe whatever the hell you say, regardless of whether there is evidence or not. Well said.


I will give you a +1 for agreeing and being a Slayer Fan. You do realize my nickname is after a Slayer song plus I tend to be a bit right of left even though I think Rush Limbaugh is a douche and never listened to him i'm not that far right. I'm all for gay marriage but compared to most who post on here I'm a rightwing nut job. yee haw!


Your status inspired me to put my fav Slayer verse.

Edited by Dittohead, 26 July 2012 - 08:25 PM.


#245 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

I will give you a +1 for agreeing and being a Slayer Fan. You do realize my nickname is after a Slayer song plus I tend to be a bit right of left even though I think Rush Limbaugh is a douche and never listened to him i'm not that far right. I'm all for gay marriage but compared to most who post on here I'm a rightwing nut job. yee haw!


Your status inspired me to put my fav Slayer verse.


Absolutely I do....Divine Intervention...awesome album.
Posted Image

#246 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,309 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:19 AM

For those of you who want to do something pro-active, you can go here to sign a petition to put pressure on Premier Christy Clark to reject the Northern Pipeline carrying Tar Sands Oil to the B.C. Coast.


So, how will stopping the pipeline lower GHG emissions?
If anything, without the pipeline, there will be more - as the oil is going there anyways - either by big trucks spewing exhaust to get get there or via a pipeline that doesn't emit any GHG.

I'm not saying the pipeline is good - but this thread is about Global Warming causing the ice to melt.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

 

waiting.for.cdc.jpg


#247 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,434 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:43 AM

I'm not saying the pipeline is good - but this thread is about Global Warming causing the ice to melt.

For the most part, it isn't.. some of us understand the usefulness of climate science, versus endless political/environmentalist-based proselytism.

4JGASNR.png


#248 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,479 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:59 AM

This current batch? :unsure:

Best of the worst, i guess.



Well, they certainly are when it comes to taxes of any kind...

...the way they handled the HST was pure genius. Here's hoping that we get more of that kind of forward-thinking when Dix takes over....
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#249 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:37 AM

For the most part, it isn't.. some of us understand the usefulness of climate science, versus endless political/environmentalist-based proselytism.


The problem with the science is it became corrupted by politics. When anything becomes politicized , it gets pulled from various directions. Big money gets involved on both sides. Studies need to be 'shaped' to fit whatever the power brokers want it to shape.

End result? Cap and Trade.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There was an offer to insulate the scientists from grants and other forms of bribery, and let them do a 5 year study with the best tools avail . I hope they have started and hope both sides leave them alone.

My guess is they conclude there is climate change and they cant prove how much man is causing it and how much the earth is by natural process.

I am far more interested in what their projections are in terms of what effect it will have and how we can prepare for it.
Posted Image

#250 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

My guess is they conclude there is climate change and they cant prove how much man is causing it and how much the earth is by natural process.

I am far more interested in what their projections are in terms of what effect it will have and how we can prepare for it.


I think your positions contradict one another.

If you accept that the physical models provide sufficiently good projection, then you will also have to accept that the same physical model concludes that climate change has been dominated by human activity. Note that by physical model I don't just mean large computer climate models, but I mean all models based on our physical understandings of the earth.


"Money and politics" is a poor argument. First of all it is essentially an ad hominem, a logical fallacy that has no place in a rational debate of the science itself.

That aside, of course I will not be naive to say that no results and findings are ever influenced by money or politics. Heck just human error alone can lead to erroneous findings. But the point of science is that it is not build on one person's work. It is build on numerous people's work over decades, if not centuries. The real question is, are the central finding correct?

What most people don't understand is that greenhouse theory is not something proposed during the past 30 years to scare us. The greenhouse theory was first discussed in 1820's, long before the widespread use of fossil fuel. Was the science influence by money and politics back then?

Edited by MadMonk, 27 July 2012 - 11:26 AM.


#251 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,939 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 27 July 2012 - 03:04 PM

This is depressing.

People who have accepted the fact of climate change will see this story and still be powerless to do anything.

People who deny climate change will find a way to rationalize this and continue denying.

And everything will go on just the same...

#252 Truculence

Truculence

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,311 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 04

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:13 PM

This is depressing.

People who have accepted the fact of climate change will see this story and still be powerless to do anything.

People who deny climate change will find a way to rationalize this and continue denying.

And everything will go on just the same...


Hey, it's something the great-grandkids will have to worry about. What do we care?

It's funny how real estate in Richmond is still as expensive as ever. In only 150 years or so, it's all going to be underwater - unless the province or municipality decides to spend trillions of dollars on a dike system and seawater pumps to keep the island in existence.
Of course by then there's also probably going to be a global famine happening as traditional farmland dries up or floods into uselessness - so wars are pretty much inevitable, and money may be prioritized for that like it usually is.

Edited by Truculence, 27 July 2012 - 09:20 PM.

s_l_s.gif

 

burroes.gif


#253 TLindenIsGod

TLindenIsGod

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 07

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:07 PM

Don't volcanic eruptions emit more CO2 yearly than most countries?

#254 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:16 PM

Don't volcanic eruptions emit more CO2 yearly than most countries?


Do volcanic eruptions affect climate? Sulfur gases may cause cooling

Self, Stephen; Rampino, Michael R.

Earth in Space (ISSN 1040-3124), vol. 1, Sept. 1988, p. 4-7.

The relationship between volcanic eruptions on earth and the observed climatic changes is investigated. The results of the comparison and analyses of volcanologic and climatologic data sets for the years between 1880 and 1980 indicate that changes in temperature caused by even of the largest eruptions recorded during this time were about the same as normal variations in temperature. However, when temperature records for several months or years preceding and following a given eruption were analyzed, a statistically significant temperature decrease of 0.2-0.5 C was found for the periods of one to two years immediately following some of the 19th and 20th century explosive events that prodiced large aerosol clouds (e.g., Krakatau and Agung eruptions). It is suggested that the content of sulfur in the erupted magma determines the size of aerosol cloud producing the cooling effect.

http://adsabs.harvar...E&S.....1....4S


Hope that helps a little.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 27 July 2012 - 10:16 PM.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#255 TLindenIsGod

TLindenIsGod

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 07

Posted 28 July 2012 - 12:33 AM

Hope that helps a little.

It wasn't so much the sulfur I was curious about.

#256 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 July 2012 - 09:53 AM

Don't volcanic eruptions emit more CO2 yearly than most countries?


If you compare all volcanos to a country itself then yes. But overall volcanic emission is insignificant.


Posted Image

Taking the average of 65 and 319, which is 192 Mt/Year, that puts Volcanos on par with Argentina, which is about the 30th. For comparison, Canada has 544 Mt/Year, US: 5,461 Mt/Year, China: 7,031.

#257 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:15 AM

I think your positions contradict one another.

If you accept that the physical models provide sufficiently good projection, then you will also have to accept that the same physical model concludes that climate change has been dominated by human activity. Note that by physical model I don't just mean large computer climate models, but I mean all models based on our physical understandings of the earth.


"Money and politics" is a poor argument. First of all it is essentially an ad hominem, a logical fallacy that has no place in a rational debate of the science itself.

That aside, of course I will not be naive to say that no results and findings are ever influenced by money or politics. Heck just human error alone can lead to erroneous findings. But the point of science is that it is not build on one person's work. It is build on numerous people's work over decades, if not centuries. The real question is, are the central finding correct?

What most people don't understand is that greenhouse theory is not something proposed during the past 30 years to scare us. The greenhouse theory was first discussed in 1820's, long before the widespread use of fossil fuel. Was the science influence by money and politics back then?


I didnt ask your opinion of what you think of climate change . Nor did anyone ask you to spin the idea that climate change MUST mean man created it all or most of it. Rehashing that argument is not helpful.

You cant use assumptions to create conclusions .

Your post has little in terms of objective value and sitting behind a computer on a hockey blog arguing about it does nothing.

Lets hear about what we are going to do moving forward in terms of the climate change.


.
Posted Image

#258 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:20 AM

This is depressing.

People who have accepted the fact of climate change will see this story and still be powerless to do anything.

People who deny climate change will find a way to rationalize this and continue denying.

And everything will go on just the same...


I agree. It is frustrating.

There is nothing we can do about it in the large context . But some sit behind a computer screen musing about things WAY beyond their control. They think this gives them some kind of power.

Its sad. Pretending to have power over things way over their heads to do anything about. Arguing about it like THEY are in charge or make the decisions about all this.

What can we ordinary people do?

Write our government. Recycle . Car pool. Take the bus or ride a bike or walk. Invest in green energy.

These are things I would respect doing.

Whining about it on the internet ? No. I dont respect it at all .
Posted Image

#259 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:34 AM

I agree. It is frustrating.

There is nothing we can do about it in the large context . But some sit behind a computer screen musing about things WAY beyond their control. They think this gives them some kind of power.

Its sad. Pretending to have power over things way over their heads to do anything about. Arguing about it like THEY are in charge or make the decisions about all this.

What can we ordinary people do?

Write our government. Recycle . Car pool. Take the bus or ride a bike or walk. Invest in green energy.

These are things I would respect doing.

Whining about it on the internet ? No. I dont respect it at all .


Yeah, the only thing worse than those who sit behind a computer screen musing about things beyond their control, thinking it gives them power, is those who COMPLAIN about these people, thinking this makes them superior to the people they complain about.
Posted Image

#260 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:36 AM

I came across more specific information about Greenland melt.

Lora Koenig made further clarifications about the '150 cycle'

My comment shows that melt events have occurred at Summit in the past and I have quoted the longest-term average frequency of ~150 years (exactly 153 from the paper) over the past 10,000. Since this is an ice core record that frequency is for the location of Summit only. The frequency ranges from ~80 to 250 years over different sections of the GISP2 ice core, please see the paper for specifics.



The paper she's referring to is: Alley, R.B. and S. Anandakrishnan. Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland. Annals of Glaciology 21, 64-70 (1995), but unfortunately I couldn't get access even with my university.

However here's a graph with the relevant data from the GISP2 site.
Posted Image
Each green line corresponds to a year with melt. From the data the melt is definitely a random event with probability modulated by climatological factors. A 150 year melt cycle doesn't appear to exist.

Edited by MadMonk, 28 July 2012 - 10:37 AM.


#261 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:32 PM

I didnt ask your opinion of what you think of climate change . Nor did anyone ask you to spin the idea that climate change MUST mean man created it all or most of it. Rehashing that argument is not
helpful.

The whole point of a forum is for an open discussion. If anyone finds my position unreasonable I will always be happy to discuss it.

Back to topic. Knowing the cause of the change is immensely useful.

If we don't find out the cause, whatever we do will just be a bandaid solution dealing with the symptoms. We are also not necessarily addressing the problem the most efficient way, because if we also know the cause there are additional options, which may be more cost effective. We also can't make any projections without knowing the cause, and you certainly can't make long term policies without a reasonable projection.

You appear to think that attribution is irrelevant, but I disagree and here's why

Suppose we don't bother finding out the cause, and all we know is that earth is warming, sea level is raising. We will have no idea whether it will continue, no idea whether the warming will speed up, slow down, or reverse its course. We can't make policies. Period.

Fortunately we've established beyond a reasonable doubt (and I can discuss the relevant science if you disagree) that the current increase in temperature is mostly due to CO2 increase (let's forget the source for now) in the atmosphere. That's important information because we now have additional mitigation policies that are specific to an increase in CO2, such as carbon capture, at our disposal.

It is also very important to know WHY CO2 is increasing, because once we've established that the increase in atmospheric CO2 (again I can talk about the science) is entirely due to us, not only does it gives us additional tools (i.e. transition out of fossil fuel), but it actually gives us much more certainty about where the climate is heading, because the projection of CO2 is made much simpler.

This is hugely important because if the increase in CO2 were some natural cause, we can't say anything about future climate until we find out the cause of the increase and predict the increase, which hinders any long term policy making. Furthermore, policy needs to be cost effective, and you can't evaluate the cost effectiveness if you don't know how much of the warming is caused by human. A policy can be ineffective if the human and natural source of CO2 increase is 50-50, but very effective for 100-0 scenario.

My opinion is that establishing the current climate change is anthropogenic in nature is not about blame, not about guilt. The point is so that we can sensibly deal with the problem. If we leave out the attribution part, we are not dealing with the problem as efficiently as we can.

You cant use assumptions to create conclusions .

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly.

Your post has little in terms of objective value and sitting behind a computer on a hockey blog arguing about it does nothing.

Lets hear about what we are going to do moving forward in terms of the climate change.


If you have looked at my other posts on the subject (this thread and other), you'll find that I'm not one to shy away from a discussion of the science. I don't find talking to people about the science useless, for the reason I outlined earlier: you can't make the best decision if you don't correctly understand the problem and its cause.

I've discussed the issue global warming with many people who doubt the anthropogenic nature of the current warming both online and offline, and almost all of them based their skepticism on incorrect or incomplete understanding of the science. My experience is that people are generally willing to update their views when they have the correct understanding.

Edited by MadMonk, 28 July 2012 - 01:34 PM.





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.