70% chance that the North Pole will be melted by end of summer????

[Skidmore]

I believe I saw a brief article to this effect on television this morning before I left for my journey home. Not certain what station it was on, but it was one of the cable channels. Did anyone else see this? Any climate experts here who can speak to the implications of such an event? How does this play out in other climate zones if there are no intervening factors?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Swim Santa! Swim For Your Life!

[lonestarnot]

4. does rudolph's nose work in July?

[FreeState]

2. It's been all over the news

any way here is a google link to 866 stories about it:)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=North+Pole+melt&btnG=Search+News

[madeline_con]

3. We'd better move inland. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

16. That ice is already in the water. Go do the following experiment:

Stick a few ice cubes in a glass. Then fill it to the brim with water. Leave it out. Let the ice melt. Come back and note that the water has not overflowed.

[0rganism]

33. the melting ice on Greenland and Antarctica is a different matter

Do the same experiment but suspend the ice over the full glass before it melts. Then see what happens when you come back later.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Of course.

[MyRV9]

74. Um... the ice in Antarctica isn't melting.

the melting ice on Greenland and Antarctica is a different matter

Antarctic ice levels are at record HIGHS. The ice in Antarctica isn't melting. There are 1 million more square kilometers of ice in Antarctica now than there was in 1979.

[Blue Belle]

81. Please site where you are getting your statistics...

because everywhere that I have read, the ice in Antarctica is melting faster.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080114-antarctica-melting.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

[Uncle Joe]

87. Not according to this analysis

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/science/earth/16melt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

<snip>

"Now, a new satellite analysis shows that at least once in the last several years, masses of unusually warm air pushed to within 310 miles of the South Pole and remained long enough to melt surface snow across a California-size expanse.
<snip>

The warm spell, which occurred over one week in 2005, was detected by scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA and the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Balmy air, with a temperature of up to 41 degrees in some places, persisted across three broad swathes of West Antarctica long enough to leave a distinctive signature of melting, a layer of ice in the snow that cloaks the vast ice sheets of the frozen continent. The layer formed the same way a crust of ice can form in a yard in winter when a warm day and then a freezing night follow a snowfall, the scientists said.

<snip>

Dr. Steffen said if such conditions intensified or persisted for a long time, the melting could conceivably produce streams of water that could, as has been measured in Greenland, percolate down to bedrock and allow the thick ice sheets coating the continent to slide a bit faster toward the sea."

[madeline_con]

35. Yes, the curious properties of H2O. n/t

[Blue Belle]

80. Deleted...

[femmocrat]

5. Yes. Terrible consequences for the polar bears.

Also heard (or read) that it could accelerate global warming as the polar ice cap helps to cool the planet, kind of like a big air conditioner. We are doomed.

:scared:

[hokies4ever]

6. But somewhere the seals are celebrating their new found freedom

:rofl:

[pokerfan]

12. It changes the Earth's albedo

Albedo is the ratio of how much light is reflected by a planet to that received by it.

Ice reflects a lot of solar radiation back to space before that energy enters the climate system. When the cap shrinks, the earth now absorbs more solar energy leading to more warming which leads to more melting.

So the melting cap is not only a symptom of warming, it becomes a causative factor. Engineers refer to this a positive feedback. Positive in that it's self-reinforcing, not that it's in any way desirable.

Several cruise lines have been running northwest passage cruises for the last three years. How soon before someone offers a summer cruise to the north pole?

[defendandprotect]

7. There's been a thread up here at DU for a few days . . .

[Blue_In_AK]

8. You couldn't tell it by the temperature here this summer

which has been decidedly cold, but I'll take the ice experts' word on it.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

9. Shouldn't the ocean levels be way up already

if this was happening already? It is this sky is falling stuff that has started to have a negative effect on how the whole Global Warming problem is viewed with the people who are receptive to it falling all the time now. Do you think that anyone who buys into the ice melting by Autumn will still be on board when Santa and his Reindeer are safe after that?

I think that the "Artic Melting Completely by Summer" line is complete bullshit. I think a pile of bullshit could call bullshit on it. I do agree that Global Warming is a problem, but not I do not believe crap like this and I think that stories like are detrimental to the anything being done.

[FedUpWithIt All]

10. The Arctic is ice that is not land massed.

It is already floating in water so it would not raise sea levels. It WILL heat things up a bit in the Arctic which will melt land ice and that is problematic in several ways.

1. Permafrost will thaw. This releases methane which is currently trapped in the frozen ground. Methane is very bad for global warming as it traps more heat than the Carbon we are currently dealing with.

2. Additional fresh water will be released into the salty ocean water and disrupt currents causing weather issues on surrounding continents.

3. Once land ice melts sea levels will rise. The more land ice melts the more it encourages/speeds up the melting process as water under the ice serves to both slide ice off the land into the surrounding ocean and also creates dark pools which attract (not reflect) heat.

4. Fresh water will begin a process (slowing of the currents that brings up the cool water) which will kill plankton. Plankton is very very important as it is a staple of the oceanic food chain. Plankton also absorb huge amounts of atmospheric carbon.

All of these things will speed up the process of global climate change.

[Bandit]

14. Maybe you should do some actual research before you spout off like this

There is an old saying "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

[Super Soaker Sniper]

15. Like

the guy who is saying that the artic will be all melted by fall? You believe it, I don't. Let's see who is the fool by October.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Er, you do understand that if you melt ice that's already in water, you don't raise water levels?"

[Super Soaker Sniper]

21. You understand that

what I am saying is that the Artic melting completely by the end of summer is bullshit, right? I bought into the "Coming Global Ice Age" in the 70's. Bought sled dog stock and igloo futures and it never happened. I do believe that there may be some climate fluctuation (duh, it's climate), but I am not going to fall for the panic and the hype this time. I was all set to go on a wooly mammoth hunt last time and was very disappointed.

[Occam Bandage]

22. You asked, "shouldn't the ocean levels be way up already?" The answer is no. That said,

I highly doubt you bought into the "coming global ice age" of the '70s, since that was a brief media-created blip, based on speculation with no science behind it, extending little further beyond one Time magazine issue. It is, however, a common right-wing distraction attempt when confronted with global warming.

Oh, and argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

28. My whole point is

I do not believe that the Artic will be completely melted by summer. Ice in the oceans is one third above the surface and two thirds below. Water expands when it freezes so the water below the suface melting would not raise the ocean levels at all, in fact they may drop a bit. But that is just cunting what is below the suface. The third above the surface melting would cause some rise in ocean levels as the ice below the surface did not expand by a third when it froze. A meltdown on the level that it would have to be all gone by fall would have already caused a noticeable rise in ocean levels.

I said I do believe there is some climate change going on. I do not believe that the Artic will be melted by the end of summer. I do not believe that we are on the the edge of the abyss and could tumble off tomorrow. I do not fall for panic scenarios. This whole Artic gone by fall is no different than the example you brought up about the Global Ice Age. It is a blip and there is not a whole wealth of science backing that particular scenario up.

You may buy into stuff for whatever reason, I do not. If I fall for it one way, then I must fall for it the other if the same standard of proof is presented.

I do not believe that Bush's actions caused the record breaking hurricane season in 2005. If I blamed the man for causing all of those hurricanes to hit our coast in 2005, then I must give him credit for not allowing any hurricanes to hit our shores in 2006 and 2007.

I believe in Global Warming, I do not buy into the panic and I do not blame everything on it either. My computer is a piece of shit, Global Warming had nothing to do with it. My ex-wife was a serial adultress, Global Warming had nothing to do with either.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Well, I can at least see that you didn't major in physics.

I do not believe that the Artic will be completely melted by summer.
Okay. Again, argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

Ice in the oceans is one third above the surface and two thirds below.
This is incorrect. The amount of water above the surface is equal to the expansion factor of the water when it freezes.

Water expands when it freezes so the water below the suface melting would not raise the ocean levels at all, in fact they may drop a bit.
Yes.

But that is just cunting
John McCain, is that you?

what is below the suface. The third above the surface melting would cause some rise in ocean levels as the ice below the surface did not expand by a third when it froze. A meltdown on the level that it would have to be all gone by fall would have already caused a noticeable rise in ocean levels.
Again, no. The amount of ice that floats above the surface is the exact same amount as the buoyancy created by the expansion of the ice below the water line. Exact. Same. It's obvious why that would be if you think about it. Seriously, go test this. I mean, now. Freeze a small plastic glass worth of water in the freezer. This is your iceberg. Drop it into a larger glass. Fill that glass with water, just below the brim. Mark the water line if you like. Then set it outside and let it melt.

You will note that no water will spill over. Assuming you do not leave it out long enough for meaningful evaporation to take place (i.e., not overnight) you will notice that the water is still at the water line.

I said I do believe there is some climate change going on. I do not believe that the Artic will be melted by the end of summer.
Unfortunately, what people believe has nothing to do with what is reality.

I do not believe that we are on the the edge of the abyss and could tumble off tomorrow. I do not fall for panic scenarios. This whole Artic gone by fall is no different than the example you brought up about the Global Ice Age
You brought that up. The difference is that nobody actually believed in a global ice age. It was an 'OMG WHAT IF' by Time Magazine.

It is a blip and there is not a whole wealth of science backing that particular scenario up.
Sure there is. It's a possibility. It may happen, it may not. The scientist with this model said it was a possibility, not a certainty.

You may buy into stuff for whatever reason, I do not. If I fall for it one way, then I must fall for it the other if the same standard of proof is presented.
Given that you don't understand how ice works, how do you judge standards of proof?

I do not believe that Bush's actions caused the record breaking hurricane season in 2005.
Nor does anyone. That's a strawman created by Rush. Some people believe, correctly, that the policies of the last few decades contributed heavily to global warming, and that global warming makes it more likely that strong hurricane seasons will occur.

If I blamed the man for causing all of those hurricanes to hit our coast in 2005, then I must give him credit for not allowing any hurricanes to hit our shores in 2006 and 2007.
Probabilities are not certainties. You seem to not understand this.

I believe in Global Warming, I do not buy into the panic and I do not blame everything on it either. My computer is a piece of shit, Global Warming had nothing to do with it. My ex-wife was a serial adultress, Global Warming had nothing to do with either.
Nobody 'blames everything on global warming.' That's completely beside this discussion. We're discussing a possible sign of global warming. Everything else are the random strawmen you're throwing out there.

[Clark2008]

25. I guess the scientists quoted in all the following legitimate

articles don't know as much as you:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080627/iceless_north_080627/20080627?hub=CTVNewsAt11

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4232375.ece

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3f16c255-7c20-4024-a02d-6a93d8aca59c

What is it you do for a living?

:eyes:

[Super Soaker Sniper]

29. I know I will wait until the end of summer.

If I am wrong, I swim very well and have plenty of scuba gear. In fact my new Body Glove wet suit I was going to try out on vacation this year, I will wait to wear until October or so. Just because a natural disaster falls upon us, does not mean I can't be stylin'.

[Clark2008]

30. Here's a question.

What if MOST of it melts, but not all. Does that matter?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

36. If most of the Ice Melts

then under the parameters set forth in this discussion, the scenario mentioned in the OP is wrong. Accepting less would be moving the goal posts, pure and simple.

[EOTE]

53. No, YOU are wrong. There is no moving of the goal posts.

Did you see that little thing about a 70% chance? That would mean if MOST of the ice melts, it would be very congruous with that 70% claim. That means that there is a 30% chance that not all of the ice would melt. It sounds like your stats ability is almost as bad as your scientific ability.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

56. Really? That is not what the stats say.

Even with my limited intellect I know that when a stat says that there is a 70% chance of something happening, it does not mean that there is a chance of 70% of it happening. There is a 70% chance of it happening like they predicted and a 30% chance of it not happening at all.

Considering what your own stats ability apparently is, I am having serious doubts about your sparkling intellect. It may be that your intellect is impressive only to yourself. Your only argument with me is that I do not believe that the Artic will be completely melted by the end of summer. I am sorry, I just don't.

Earlier, I mentioned my belief in God. I believe in God and I assume that you may not. Does the fact that you do not believe in God cause me to judge you or consider you a sinner, bound to be condemned to Hell? NO, I do not. My bel;ief in God is my own and your faith or lack of it has no bearing on how I judge you and I do not judge you in the first place. My beliefs in God, the Cowboys or Global Warming are my own and I do not feel it is my place to force them upon you on doubt your intelligence in anyway because they do not mirror mine. You may be stupid, I do not know, but if you are, it is not your beliefs, it is just you.

[EOTE]

57. Apparently you think that climate change is a digital issue.

It must be really reassuring to see everything in black and white. IE, either the artic will be gone or it won't be. Of course, there are no shades of gray there. What I was saying was that if there's a 70% of something happens completely, and it ends up happening incompletely, that is congruent with the original argument. I never said that it meant that there was a 100% chance of the event occuring 70% complete, that's just a very stupid straw man that you threw out, not me. I have no problems comprehending that, but you obviously do. In your mind, either the arctic will remain 100% or it will be completely gone by the end of the summer. I think there's a pretty damn good chance that the actual result will fall between those two extremes, and the original assumption of 70% would still be valid WHEN it was made. If you're going to doubt my ability with stats, you better know what the hell you are talking about. It's obvious that you don't. And no, I won't get into a theological debate with you now.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

58. The OP says there is a 70%

chance of it happening. I say there is no, absolutely none, of the Artic melting completely by fall. Not basing it on anything other than it seems like bullshit to me. The rest of the little debate has been nothing more than semantics. I do not believe it and I guess in the fall I will feel really silly if I was wrong.

What is wrong with seeing somethings in black and white? Not everything, of course, but on somethings I know how I feel and I am sure enough that it is black or white. On others, there are grey areas. I do not know what grey areas are to you, to me they are just wiggle room.

[EOTE]

61. Here is why you are wrong.

You said: "If most of the Ice Melts then under the parameters set forth in this discussion, the scenario mentioned in the OP is wrong."

What you fail to understand is that the initial conditions of 70% chance of all arctic ice melting completely by fall INCLUDES the possibility of most of the arctic ice melting by the fall. If there's a 30% chance of the arctic ice not melting by the fall, that includes conditions where there is some ice remaining? Is that too difficult to understand? You are wrong. And what is worse than that, you won't admit you are wrong.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

62. Regardless

I do not believe that ALL the ice will be gone by fall. Which is what I have been saying all along.

[EOTE]

63. Yes, and you've been saying a lot of other things.

Many of which are wrong. If you don't believe it, that's fine. But don't go throwing around your distorted version of science to try and prove your point. Leave that to the scientists. Because when you try to sound like one, it comes off as quite foolish.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

67. Buying wholeheartedly into some stuff

whether science based or not, comes off as foolish also.

[EOTE]

73. And what exactly am I buying into?

I simply dismissed your foolish dismissal because it's obvious that you know next to nothing (and that's being generous) about the subject. I haven't accepted or dismissed this claim. Just pointed to your laughable science and horrible logic that leads you to dismiss it so easily. Once again, you're about as far from a scientist as can be. Leave science to the scientists, because you come off extremely silly when you attempt to talk like one.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

77. Well I am not talking like one

when I say I do not believe it. Unlike you, I am not waiting around for a consensus to tell me what to think. I already do not believe it and in the fall I will be right and by then, you will probably have your mind made up for you in the matter.

[EOTE]

86. Now you're just being willfully ignorant.

According to your twisted logic, if Hideki Matsui, with a .323 batting average hits a low grounder to first, he'd be batting 1000. I've already explained to you how it's impossible to determine via one specific outcome whether the original projection was correct or not. We've already established how lacking you are in terms of math and science ability, I guess we should add reading comprehension to that as well. Once again, I can't attest to the validity of this projection. I know little about those involved and I know relatively little about the science of climate change. I'm smart enough to know that my opinion on a projection like this would be almost worthless. I'm not a climatologist, nor do I pretend to be one. However, I know that there is a great deal of existing evidence that quite a bit of near irreversible damage has been done and there are many changes that need to be made. I don't wait for anyone to tell me what to think, however, when a large majority of people who have dedicated their lives to studying something agree on something, I'm inclned to value their knowledge far more than my educated opinion. This is really getting tired. If you don't believe something, that's fine. Just don't try to use garbage science and ridiculously flawed logic to prop up your position. `

[LanternWaste]

39. I imagine many people

"Just because a natural disaster falls upon us, does not mean I can't be stylin'."

I imagine many people have mis-placed priorities such as yours...

[Super Soaker Sniper]

40. My priorities

don't involve jumping on every sky is falling scenario that comes down the pike. You point to legitimate scientists saying that it is happening, legitimate scientists abound who say that Global Warming is a hoax. I do not buy into that just because they are "scientists" and just because "scientists" say there will be no ice left in the artic by the end of summer I am not going to fall for it. Global Warming is happening. The Artic melting by fall is not.

[Occam Bandage]

41. "legitimate scientists abound who say that Global Warming is a hoax"

Abound. You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

42. Well, I know what I believe

and I know what I fall for. As far as your knowledge of english and your vocabulary, what am I supposed to be? Impressed? "Oh! This guy is practically a thesaurus! I MUST agree with everything his says because I am in awe of his superior intellect.

I know that there are scientists who say Global Warming is happening. I agree. There are scientists who say Global Warming is NOT happening. I do not agree. There are scientists that say that the Artic will completely melt by fall. I do not agree with that either. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I guess we will know in the fall, won't we?

[Occam Bandage]

43. "There are scientists who say Global Warming is NOT happening"

Not really, no. That was what I meant by my denial of "abounds." There are very, very few scientists who deny climate change--and fewer still who have a Ph.D. in climatology, and fewer still who are current climatology researchers. Similar to what you see with "evolution skeptics," most of the "scientists" Exxon drags out to claim a "controversy" have either been effectively retired for decades, are working for an oil company or an oil-funded "research initiative," have only a bachelors', or have a degree in an entirely different field (such as geology.)

You can agree or disagree with various scientists all you like. I'm not sure why you keep repeating that; nobody is trying to take away your right to make blind declarations of disbelief or of faith.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

44. Just like there are very few

scientists who agree the Artic will melt by the end of summer. Bush's impeachment is more likely to happen than that.

[Occam Bandage]

45. *shrug.* Silly comparison. There aren't hundreds of thousands publishing papers

on how it won't melt. There isn't consensus either way on this.

There's a guy with a model, and the model says it'll melt. I'm rather agnostic on the issue; I'm not qualified to claim anything either way. Not sure where your denial comes from.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

46. Not denying it.

Just don't believe it. It comes from a different sky is falling scenario every week sillier than the previous one. Ted Turner was warning us that we were just years away from becoming cannibals a few months ago. I should have bought into that just because it promotes Global Warming?

Global Warming is happening. Okay, I get it! It's bad! But now it's people turning into cannibals, polar bears drowning by the hundreds, Santa losing his home at the north pole, earthquakes, volcanos, athletes foot, flat beer. I mean come on! Have you seen the eye rolling reactions of people when you bring up Global Warming lately? Any mention of it is met with disdain and a "what else is Global Warming responsible now attitude."

[suffragette]

90. Must be a very interesting group of people with whom you associate,

to encounter "eye rolling reactions of people when you bring up Global Warming lately."



But, I'm not surprised by that.

[LanternWaste]

47. Again, I maintain that...

Again, I maintain that it would seem many people have different priorities when confronted with a peer-reviewed scientific consensus. Priorities that may even include attempting to be "stylish".

[Super Soaker Sniper]

48. Not So Much a Priority

as much as making the best of whatever may come. A "consensus" in science means nothing. There was a scientific consensus at one time that the world was flat. Or that the Earth was the center of the universe. Consensus did not do anything about making actual, factual science fit within their consensus. Either science on something is right or it is wrong. The consensus will have nothing with what is actually the true science behind it. I agree with the science, regardless of the whether there is a consensus or not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. You're a creationist too, ain't ya?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

50. I believe in God

believe in the New Testament. As far as creation, I don't know. Not sure, waiting on a consensus to tell me what I should think about the whole thing, maybe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Figures.

You know that the moon orbits around the Earth, right?

Just checking.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

55. Gee!

Sorry that actually believing in God offends you so. I could really have my faith even more misplaced though. Like Pelosi and impeachment happening, couldn't I?

I really do not get why it is so imperative for you that I buy into something just because it has the global warming brand. As far as I am concerned you could believe whatever you wanted and it would not matter to me in the least. Of course I do not live my mind trying to get others to bend to my beliefs or principles. I know that may be a foreign concept for you, but try it sometime.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. You believe in God?

That's not the problem.

The problem is the Creationist, Global warming denial, holocaust denial or whatever sort of nonsense you got suckered into believing.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

71. My religion has no bearing

on my belief that Global Warming is happening. Believing in God equals denying the Holocaust? Kind of a big leap, ain't it?

[LanternWaste]

54. you're comparing apples to spam.

"There was a scientific consensus at one time that the world was flat."

Scientific methodology was not in use at that time, therefore it was not science as we know it and practice it.

At that point in time, "science" was merely a useful translation of the Bible, so in effect, you're comparing apples to spam.

[EOTE]

52. Ha! What a joke!

"Legitimate scientists about who say that Global Warming is a hoax". Show me 10 of these "legitimate scientists". Global warming (and man made at that) is supported by the great majority of all scientists. I'm sure you can find a few scientists who believe in creationism as well, that doesn't make the argument any less stupid (sorry to offend your belief system, but it's true). You've demonstrated many times on this thread your lack of knowledge and reasoning on this subject. I'd suggest educating yourself.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

60. Educating myself on what?

I already said that I do believe Global Warming is happening. There is some argument presented that it is not and I said I do not believe it. I never said I believed in Creationism. So what exactly am I uneducated about? If anything your reading comprehension could use some tuning up as I was not on the opposite of any point from you except that I do not believe the Artic will melt completely by fall. What is so wrong about believe that? If anything you are offended that I am disagreeing on a small point with you. I agree that Global Warming is happening. Is this not what you believe also?

And you do not offend my belief system as it is my own. You may find it stupid, but then I find some things pretty stupid myself and you may take offense that I view them that way. I find the fact that people still cling to the Impeachment of Bush actually happening pretty hilarious and actually pity those that believe it as they are hopelessly detatched from reality. It may not mirror what you believe, but it is what I believe.

[EOTE]

64. To bolster your point, you suggested that many "scientists" disagree on Global Warming.

That is simply not true. You may believe in Global Warming, but when you bring up many "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming to illustrate your point about a lack of scientific concensus, you shoot yourself in the foot. The scientific concensus is solidly on the side of man made global warming. So once again, if you have a problem with the OP, you can express that, but to bring up these ridiculous anecdotes to suggest that scientific concensus can't be trusted is ridiculous.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

70. Science is right

regardless of whether there is a consensus or not and consensus will not make flawed science right. There was consensus among scientists about Eugenics at one time also. Did that make the science right?

[EOTE]

72. Really? What was the scientific concensus on Eugenics?

Care to share with me where you got this information?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

83. There was no consensus on eugenics?

Eugenics even had the support of the Supreme Court. Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all had eugenics based sterization laws on the books. Australia, Germany, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Iceland, Panama, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Denmark all had Egenics based sterilization programs. All of this was done without a scientific consensus? There was more unity among countries in regards to Eugenics than there is today on Global Warming and you deny that there was a consensus?

[EOTE]

88. Reading comprehension problems again?

I said SCIENTIFIC consensus. There was never a scientific consensus advocating Eugenics. There has always been a history of certain people using science for the purposes of racism and other very bad things, but that usually does not equate to a consensus. It wasn't until the atrocities of the Holocaust that Eugenics became thoroughly repugnant in the minds of most, but that doesn't mean it had a majority of support from the scientific community prior to that. And you also seem to not understand the Eugenics is a PHILOSOPHY and not a science. What makes people repelled to the thought of Eugenics is not the scientific data regarding it, it's the MORAL objection to practices such as forced sterilization.

[MyRV9]

75. There is no censensus...

There is plenty of debate in the scientific community about global warming, and even more about whether if it is happening, if it is caused by human behavior. And I'm not talking about the local community college freshman science professor. Big names with impressive resumes disagree with current global warming theories.

The current tactic of human-caused global warming promoters is to declare a consensus and say the debate is over - as you are doing here.

At best, the issue hasn't been resolved and there are many unanswered questions.

[EOTE]

76. There is no scientific consensus on Global Warming? Are you sure you want to say that?

Not only is there scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, there is scientific consensus that it is man made as well. Sure, there are plenty of people who have issues with it, that doesn't mean that there is any less of a consensus. I'm not trying to stifle debate at all, but it sure is silly to hear people talking about a lack of consensus when there most obviously is. I suppose you think there's no scientific consensus with regards to evolution either? Ahem, from Wikipedia:

"The Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including variations in its orbit around the Sun (orbital forcing),<15><16><17>, changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions,<18> and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus<19><20> is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. Some other hypotheses departing from the consensus view have been suggested to explain most of the temperature increase. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.<21><22><23>

None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.<24>"

You know, it's really easy to look this stuff up. It makes you look really foolish when you dispute something so easy to verify.

[Blue Belle]

84. Really? Big names w/impressive resumes?

Name one. Give a link to where you get your information.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Looks like the mods came to a consensus.

[RadiationTherapy]

68. Hey, genius, you still don't understand that even if the ice melts, you will not need scuba gear?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

78. Well there goes THAT

plan! Naybe I'll just snorkle then.

[Blue Belle]

82. Seriously??

I guess you missed those satallite photos that from last summer that traced the rate of decreasing ice.

[Hannah Bell]

11. somebody posted a link to the satellite photos. it wasn't melted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3370882&mesg_id=3370946

[Occam Bandage]

17. "will be" does not mean "already is."

[Clark2008]

27. BTW, the satellite pictures one sees on Google Earth and the like

are generally about six months old.

I'm not sure the date on that is the date searched or the date of the picture.

[Hannah Bell]

31. it's current/daily according to the poster. he left a link, you can check it for yourself though.

[Blue Belle]

85. I didn't say it was melted...

I said the ice was decreasing. Big difference.

[SemperParatus]

13. Finally!

Thank god you exist FedUpWithItAll...someone else who understands displacement.

Anywho, I'd have to call bullshit on this line too. Just based off of my own experiences, working aboard an icebreaker. This last ice season was the worst and coldest in 10 years they were saying, not to mention summer temperatures up here just now hit the 70's. Global warming doesn't seem to be working that fast :O...kinda wish it would hurry up lol.

[FedUpWithIt All]

19. Well thank you.

:hi:

[carlyhippy]

20. I thought it said 100% of the north pole would melt

that is what I heard earlier in the week, all ice would be gone, isn't there land up there, it isn't all icebergs is it?

I have also heard that there are under-ocean volcanoes that are the culprit, they are heating up the water up there, I feel sorry for the penguins and polar bears and seals, hopefully they will find some land to habitate.

Ice has been there since the ice age, I can't help but wonder...is this global warming caused by us, or is it just the earth is changing naturally, every living thing will have to adapt, as they adapted in the past.

[Occam Bandage]

23. "isn't there land up there?" No. It is all water and ice.

"I have also heard that there are under-ocean volcanoes that are the culprit."
There has not been an increase in volcanic activity.

"I feel sorry for the penguins and polar bears and seals, hopefully they will find some land to habitate."
There is no land there. There is water and ice. Also, penguins are antarctic, not arctic.

[carlyhippy]

26. well it looks like I need to go back to school LOL

Carly

[RadiationTherapy]

69. Maybe it is natural! You should go buy an SUV!

hippy.

[MilesColtrane]

24. The figure I heard was a 50% chance.

The melted ice will be around the North Pole and north of Russia and northeastern Europe.

[aikoaiko]

37. At least the northwest passage will be open and shipping rates will decrease

there's always a silver lining in global climate change.

[slackmaster]

89. Also new fishing grounds will be opened up during summer

You have to find the good wherever it is.

[bluedawg12]

38. It was CNN and they said 50% chance of melting to a thin layer

by end of summer.

Here are some links, a kind of walk through the last 7 years:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Arctic_Ice/
The Arctic Sea Ice Is Melting--How Long Will It Last?
This page was last revised on May 25, 2000.


However, melting of the Arctic sea ice will have a dramatic effect on the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth's surface in the Arctic region. The lower albedo of open ocean will mean less solar energy reflected back into space. It will instead be absorbed by the ocean. The warmer water will melt more sea ice, and eventually the warmer atmosphere above the warmer water will melt more of the ice sheets on Greenland. Since sea ice and sheet ice both consist of fresh water, the result will be a huge increase in the amount of fresh water in the Arctic Ocean. This could possibly lead to a shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation and drastic cooling of temperatures everywhere.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, Rothrock et al presented compelling evidence of the reduction in thickness of Arctic sea ice over the past 40 years. Combining their data with data from another study on the extent of Arctic sea ice , it would appear that the total mass of sea ice has shrunk by up to 60% in the past 40 years.

Extrapolation of the Rothrock et al data indicates that sea ice in the Eastern Arctic Ocean could be entirely gone by September 2001.
..........

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums for 2002-2007.

The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents (graph below).

Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier.

..........
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
Global - Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2̊C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century".

The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

The map reveals that the greatest warming has been in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude regions. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observed record low Arctic sea ice cover in September 2007.



.............

[Deja Q]

59. Well, I heard Santa wanted a larger swimming pool, but Mrs Claus said "No, too damn expensive!"

He'll get one now...

[XemaSab]

66. Here's today's ice: All that red? NOT GOOD. It should be solidly purple up there.

[ItNerd4life]

79. Cool, I've always wanted to move to the North Pole.

If it gets warm enough, I got dibs on the property surrounding Santas place.

Maybe I'll get a peak at Mrs. Claus sunbathing. :P