Cool this summer? arctic sea ice melt 3rd highest

[holdfast]

I think that Scholar George W. even finally admitted to this issue.

 

I normally don't post paintings I've done in thread replies...this time it fits

 

I painted this after learning of the polar bear plight----Story behind is---I drown the mother bear and had the cub using it for a life-raft

 

Maybe a tad hokey but I'm not stopping other artists painting the beauty of a coal-fired generator at sunset either.

 

 

Oh Boy, Now I'm going to off myself. A polar Bear cub Floating on His drowned Mother because the Ice Suddenly melted. I'm With Chris on this one. Good thing we arent back in time for Orson Wells War of the Worlds, youd be Painting Space Monsters. Maybe you should read up on the Polar Bears, they can swim for Hundreds of Miles and do in search of food. Maybe you want to stop the Inuit from hunting them too. Are you a P3TA Fan????Nothing wrong with them, its a free speach Country, Right. I just wont call them Stupid or Idiots, the new and Improved and Politically correct me, will just say, they are not smart.

[Headhunter]

Headhunter, now reaching for his really big spoon...

The best thing we as humans can do to stop "global warming" is to drive vehicles that get no more than 1 mile to the gallon! Yes, one mile to the gallon... why.... because humans will not do anything to create a new source of renewable energy or truly increase the effectiveness of our current energy use until all the oil is gone! We have shown through history that necessity is the mother of invention and can anyone say that they feel that we, as a people have truly put our collective resources toward creating an alternative? I think not!

Yes, my solution is extreme and to some degree, tongue firmly planted in cheek, but I bet some of you can see the limited amount of logic used here.

HH

[Fishnwire]

As has been pointed out several times...those denying climate change have much, much more at stake than those suggesting that a problem may exist. Follow the money. The money Al gore and his bong-water-brigade are making is insignificant to the trillions at stake by various powerful industry interests who want to maintain the status quo. If a doctor who was employed by the tobacco companies told you smoking is good for you, would you believe him? Just as the negative health effects of smoking are universally accepted today, so will the science behind man-made climate change be accepted tomorrow. The idea that some people continued to deny the problem will be laughable.

 

I find it ironic that the same people who consider the idea of global warming to be nothing more of a "scare tactic" are often the same types of people who refuse to believe that the "war on terror" is being used as a one.

 

This notion that attemptuing to address climate change can only result in "draining what's left of the taxpayer's disposable income" is wrong. For example, there are tax breaks available to home owners who make their houses more energy efficient. You add value to your home, save money heating it, and pay less taxes. That's all good.

 

I certainly don't have a lot of answers about what should be done, and I'm guilty of contributing to the problem in my own way. I burn gas, use plastic, etc, etc, etc. However, I'm certainly not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend I don't see the problem just so I can sleep better at night, which is the only motivation I can think of that someone would have for agreeing with the oil companies.

[alctel]

Quicke....everyone stop what you're doing and run to the hills.......run for your lives....the world is ending, the world is ending............

 

How many of you global warming/climate change experts have stopped driving your gas guzzling SUV's towing your gas guzzling motor boats? Have you stopped heating your homes? Whether heating with electricity or gas or oil you are leaving a footprint. What about driving your car to work. C'mon, move closer to work so that you can walk and save the planet. And shut down all those computer networks that are draining electricity and burning coal-fired electricity generating plants. Oh wait, that's exceptable because we gotta work and we gotta play. Here's a better idea.....let's just raise taxes significantly and gouge the taxpayer even more......that will fix everything.

 

I guess if it's OK to call people who disagree with you "idiots" (as has been done by PT) I'll wade into the fray and speak my mind. Anyone who thinks this is all about climate change/global warming is an idiot. This is all about draining what's left of the taxpayer's disposable income. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. And there's an old saying that goes "A fool and his money is soon parted". Only problem is the fools will cause the rest of us to pay also. Sad, very sad.

 

Climate change is a fact. If you look at the data regarding ice melt/average temperature its pretty undeniable, we are even starting to see the effects here in regards to unstable weather patterns. I can't even see why you think it would be a good hoax to play, considering most of the worlds extremely powerful multi-national corporations are fighting tooth and nail against it.

 

If you can't be bothered to even attempt to look into it and just take the Fraser Institutes word for it that nothing is wrong and its all a HUGE conspiracy between scientists and the worlds governments in order to charge you an extra 1000 bucks a year then don't call the people who are worried about it idiots and fools, just because you don't have the time/inclination to figure out whats correct. The GST needs to go up again anyway, once Harper slashed it by 2% (right before a recession) all Canada's revenue disappeared so now we have Nuclear Plants closing due to maintenance issues, no R&D on practically anything, bridges and roads crumbling, no money for arts and culture and no money for creating jobs.

 

As for the 'well you will leave a footprint so why bother trying?!' I try extremely hard, I don't even own a car, let alone a boat... obviously that's not practical for a lot of people, you will always leave a footprint, but its possible to scale it vastly down with a small bit of effort, and by your actions (like buying food locally!) you persuade the big players that its worth doing.

 

 

 

Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

 

The entire premise of this article seems to be 'but we've had a cold couple of summers!' - it doesn't work like that, climate change is going to involve a lot of places getting locally colder in the summer and warmer in the winter - like Ontario since the Jet Stream is going to be pushed down South. Also the guy who wrote is is a shrill for The Sutherland Institute - again a conglomerate of business interests.

 

interesting thread but its all worthless.

Positive or negative on the issue of global warming for or against it.

 

The bottom line is while we can debate its merits short of trying to lower our own personal carbon footprint there is nothing we can do about it

 

But there is, lowering your own carbon footprint, lobbying for better public transport, supporting politicians who try to make a difference!

 

The star had an article on climate change and the part that caught my eye was that we don't know what causes the ice to melt so it must be greenhouse gas.

 

A guy had what I think is a simpler explanation.

 

Every rain drop and snow flake has to condense on a particle, this particle can be pollen dust or whatever is floating around in the air. In the last couple centuries there has been a lot of suit from burning coal going into the air and with the natural air flow finds its way to the arctic. with snow forming on coal dust we end up with darker snow cover not the blazing white that makes you go blind from reflected sunlight. Not reflecting sunlight creates heat and at some point we reach a threshold point where the snow melts, the melting snow leaves behind all the dust and crap that was in it and this absorbs more sunlight causing the melt to speed up.

 

If you want to know the sea level after the icecap melts just dig up that old map of Antarctica without the ice on it or better still checkout where the tree line was on Ellesmere I.

 

Thousands of people die every year from air pollution but nobody cared so maybe they jacked up the threat of climate change in an effort to save lives, unfortunately in the debate on climate change the people dieing every year have been forgotten.

 

It all comes down to us stopping putting so much crap into the air/water , whether its people dying from air pollution, or polar bears/salmon dying because their habitat is rapidly changing.

Edited September 8, 2009 by alctel

[troutologist]

Oh Boy, Now I'm going to off myself. A polar Bear cub Floating on His drowned Mother because the Ice Suddenly melted. I'm With Chris on this one. Good thing we arent back in time for Orson Wells War of the Worlds, youd be Painting Space Monsters. Maybe you should read up on the Polar Bears, they can swim for Hundreds of Miles and do in search of food. Maybe you want to stop the Inuit from hunting them too. Are you a P3TA Fan????Nothing wrong with them, its a free speach Country, Right. I just wont call them Stupid or Idiots, the new and Improved and Politically correct me, will just say, they are not smart.

 

 

You're right polar bears can swim great distances, they are so adept in the water they are classed as a marine mammal. The issue of reduced ice cover is huge for polar bears. Some more reading on polar bear biology will lead you to their fasting regieme during the open water season. Since there is not platform from which they may hunt seals. The bulk of their feeding occurs in spring during the time the seal pups are venerable in dens. The lack of ice has a 2 edged sword for bears. No ice= 1) no way to access seals to eat 2) no ice=no suitable habitat for seals to give brith and raise pups. Thus bad news for bears.

 

Gough et al. 2004 published a paper on the ice cover trends in Hudson's Bay. To summarize their findings there is approximately 30 less ice in western and southern Hudson's Bay vs. the 1970. This pattern is mirrored across the arctic. What this means is bears need to fast 1 month longer than before. What does this mean to bears? Less fat reserves, as measured by body condition. A state of chronic stress as their body lacks resources for day to day activity. Noteably, thermoregulation, a major issue for a polar bear in summer.

 

First this effect is observed as individual animals in poorer condition, once these effects are wider spread it becomes a population effect. Observable through reduced reproductive success, thus less bears. If a female polar bear is not in excellent physiological health, the pregnancy does not take effect (Delayed implantation).

 

This is actual science I have been apart of. The issue at hand is the rate of change of these environmental attributes affecting various species. To persist animals need time (generations) to adapt. If change occurs too rapidly, this is lost. Certain animals are at greater risk due to their niche in the global ecosystem. For example arctic animals have adapted to live in a very particular and narrow set of criteria. Small change has the potential to effect this. The venerable coyote seems to be able to be much more plastic in its adaptability and may learn/change to meet new challenges to survial quicker.

[POLLIWOGG]

Nice painting Holdfast!

 

Truth be told the bear would have ate the cub when it didn't have enough ice to hunt on. I can draw you a little stick figure thing ... aw never mind.

 

But your still a talented painter.

[StoneFly]

What? The water is Rising because of melting ice. Lets see, I have a glass of water with ice cubes, when they melt, will I have my glass overflowing. Humm, interesting.

 

that is a good point!!! Ice is less dense than water, hence it floats, and your argument holds true for the ice that is below sealevel. HOWEVER, dont forget about the ice that is not submerged, when that melts, the water levels will go up.

 

I sure wish the water levels in our southern Ontario rivers would go up soon, Lol. The little run was a tease!!!

[StoneFly]

The following 2 articles were on the same page of yesterdays star:

 

http://www.thestar.com/article/691868

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/692037

 

Anyone think there is a connection?

[bucktail]

The "RedStar"....please...nobody take their info from this rag.

Please go to a non biased source like the USGS or NOAA

I think that was the point of this posting, that so many people and organizations have a political or financial bias that almost nothing can be trusted anymore.

Edited September 8, 2009 by bucktail

[blarg]

You may have heard that the more open water in the arctic the greater the amount of heat will be absorbed and the higher the amount of melting will be, a sort of run away train of melting, and it makes sense, however, it also makes sense that in order to overcome this inertia you would need significantly more cooling, so, not only was it cold enough last year to overcome that problem of more open water, the arctic did more than hold it's ground, it gained ice. I would be more interested in a global temperature trend over the last couple years more than the 'o but we only have a bit more ice than 2007..', true yes, but it took a significantly colder year to reverse that trend and increase the overall amounts, and THAT might mean something.

 

Im on the fence about all this, particularly about wether or not humans are causing any changes, for those of you that have bought in to all of this I just hope you understand that all of those phd's doing all of these studies don't know what is happening, they have theories, right or wrong there is no way to know for sure what is or will happen in the future. I just wonder how the average guy can become so convinced of something because suzuki etc said so, the earth has been warmer in the recent past, next time your voting liberal, ask your self if it's because your smarter than those conservative rednecks or just more easily fooled. Prove that the 'warming' is human caused..you can't, i'd be happy if we reduced pollution, co2, and all the rest, but to wonder what excuses people have in order to avoid the 'truth' shows just how ignorant the op was, and the fisrt paragraph i wrote easily shows why, I wonder why the liberal media doesn't make that point tho....I wonder, o maybe the red star will print a balanced article about it...lol.

Edited September 8, 2009 by blarg

[alctel]

You may have heard that the more open water in the arctic the greater the amount of heat will be absorbed and the higher the amount of melting will be, a sort of run away train of melting, and it makes sense, however, it also makes sense that in order to overcome this inertia you would need significantly more cooling, so, not only was it cold enough last year to overcome that problem of more open water, the arctic did more than hold it's ground, it gained ice. I would be more interested in a global temperature trend over the last couple years more than the 'o but we only have a bit more ice than 2007..', true yes, but it took a significantly colder year to reverse that trend and increase the overall amounts, and THAT might mean something.

 

Im on the fence about all this, particularly about whether or not humans are causing any changes, for those of you that have bought in to all of this I just hope you understand that all of those phd's doing all of these studies don't know what is happening, they have theories, right or wrong there is no way to know for sure what is or will happen in the future. I just wonder how the average guy can become so convinced of something because suzuki etc said so, the earth has been warmer in the recent past, next time your voting liberal, ask your self if it's because your smarter than those conservative rednecks or just more easily fooled. Prove that the 'warming' is human caused..you can't, i'd be happy if we reduced pollution, co2, and all the rest, but to wonder what excuses people have in order to avoid the 'truth' shows just how ignorant the op was, and the fisrt paragraph i wrote easily shows why, I wonder why the liberal media doesn't make that point tho....I wonder, o maybe the red star will print a balanced article about it...lol.

 

Hey Blarg, the open water theory is just one of several possible positive feedback loops, a more serious one is all the methane that is locked up in permafrost escaping when it melts. The danger is that if we wait a lot longer before doing anything at all, then it may be too late. I can understand people being sceptical, but if you look at the data its pretty clear that something very bad is happening. For example, if you look at the global temperature trend over the last 100 years like you said, you can indeed see it is increasing rapidly.

 

To everyone that says its just a hoax - who exactly would benefit from it? Governments get pilloried every time they bring it up because it means lifestyle changes and trying to change people habits, which they HATE. Businesses will lose a lot of money since they will be forced to be more efficient and generally its going to be inconvenient for everyone. On the other hand, clearing up the pollution we are making will stop things like the water in SK and Manitoba being decimated by run-offs from the oil fields and poisoning fish and people as well as hopefully stopping climate change.

 

As for the media comments, I have lived all over the world and Canada has one of the most right-wing media that I've seen(and that includes the US) but then again I guess that's what happens when 2 media conglomerates between them own 95% of all print media and all of the TV stations in the country (CBC excepted).

Edited September 8, 2009 by alctel

[chinookhunter]

I think there are to many people whining about this they should lock this forum

[scuro2]

You may have heard that the more open water in the arctic the greater the amount of heat will be absorbed and the higher the amount of melting will be, a sort of run away train of melting, and it makes sense, however, it also makes sense that in order to overcome this inertia you would need significantly more cooling, so, not only was it cold enough last year to overcome that problem of more open water, the arctic did more than hold it's ground, it gained ice. I would be more interested in a global temperature trend over the last couple years more than the 'o but we only have a bit more ice than 2007..', true yes, but it took a significantly colder year to reverse that trend and increase the overall amounts, and THAT might mean something.

 

Im on the fence about all this, particularly about wether or not humans are causing any changes, for those of you that have bought in to all of this I just hope you understand that all of those phd's doing all of these studies don't know what is happening, they have theories, right or wrong there is no way to know for sure what is or will happen in the future. I just wonder how the average guy can become so convinced of something because suzuki etc said so, the earth has been warmer in the recent past, next time your voting liberal, ask your self if it's because your smarter than those conservative rednecks or just more easily fooled. Prove that the 'warming' is human caused..you can't, i'd be happy if we reduced pollution, co2, and all the rest, but to wonder what excuses people have in order to avoid the 'truth' shows just how ignorant the op was, and the fisrt paragraph i wrote easily shows why, I wonder why the liberal media doesn't make that point tho....I wonder, o maybe the red star will print a balanced article about it...lol.

 

When the polar ice cap became one giant iceberg last year, for the first time in about 125,000 years, I took notice. That's not some regional trend or cyclical thing. I've enjoyed a lot of the responses, they have been enlightening. There are a lot of smart people on the board.

 

It's very hard to prove anything exists. Prove that Schizophrenia exists or that smoking causes cancer. Scientists draw conclusions through a body of evidence. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming even though one can not conclusively draw a conclusion. Global warming as a theory has wide acceptance in scientific field, even though some would like us to believe that there is active debate here, like two football teams going head to head. That notion is bogus. That's not to say that there isn't a few well known and respected scientists who disagree with the theory, because there are but they are in a clear minority.

 

As to see ice and trends, it's not just about coverage but thickness.

 

 

More here - http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/08/new-...a-ice-thinning/

Edited September 8, 2009 by scuro2

[StoneFly]

The "RedStar"....please...nobody take their info from this rag.

Please go to a non biased source like the USGS or NOAA

I think that was the point of this posting, that so many people and organizations have a political or financial bias that almost nothing can be trusted anymore.

 

LOL,...Quoting it from A NEWSPAPER was simply to point out that there was a story about methane bubbling up through the pacific ocean in one article and a story about the 'Mystery' of 10 million sockeye dying in the pacific in another article. They were both on the same page of the newspaper. It has nothing to do with the bias of the source.

[Billy Bob]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling........

[Radnine]

I find it ironic that the same people who consider the idea of global warming to be nothing more of a "scare tactic" are often the same types of people who refuse to believe that the "war on terror" is being used as a one.

 

That is ironic.

I too, believe that the side arguing against global warming stands to loose a lot more money than the side arguing for it.

Based on straight cynicism and straighter capitalism, we've had it.

Jim

Edited September 8, 2009 by Radnine

[Guest gbfisher]

four pages of crap......

[holdfast]

Nice painting Holdfast!

 

Truth be told the bear would have ate the cub when it didn't have enough ice to hunt on. I can draw you a little stick figure thing ... aw never mind.

 

But your still a talented painter.

 

You got the wrong Dude. I never painted anything in my life except my house, especially a picture of a poor little cub sleeping or Dying on his Mummy's lifeless, drowned, floating body. I'm not the poster boy for P3TA yet. However I did make an attempt. Not bad eh, pretty cool eh. Its not made up Either. Do you think P3TA will take my Painting?

 

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

i'll err on the side of caution and say our ways are not healthy to the planet, or to ourselves. that is indisputable. whether or not we are causing the warming of our planet will be left up to "phd" dorks who go to school to do that stuff and at this point the majority is on the cautious side... i myself trust them much more than the conservative hillbillies or petroleum industry funded "scientists" telling me it's just cyclical.

[chinookhunter]

if we eat the poler bears than we dont have to worry

[alctel]

i'll err on the side of caution and say our ways are not healthy to the planet, or to ourselves. that is indisputable. whether or not we are causing the warming of our planet will be left up to "phd" dorks who go to school to do that stuff and at this point the majority is on the cautious side... i myself trust them much more than the conservative hillbillies or petroleum industry funded "scientists" telling me it's just cyclical.

 

Outside of North America its pretty well accepted that Climate Change is happening, its man-made, and its bad.

 

The fact its still an arguement here is mainly due to 8 years of oil executives in the White House, leading to things like this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html (The white house refused to open an email that a report attached the EPA sent them on greenhouse gases, so they could continue to deny its a problem). Here is a quick quote:

 

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

 

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

 

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

 

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

 

not that Canada has been much better over the last couple of years thanks to Harper and his crew

Edited September 9, 2009 by alctel

[scuro2]

Every rain drop and snow flake has to condense on a particle, this particle can be pollen dust or whatever is floating around in the air. In the last couple centuries there has been a lot of suit from burning coal going into the air and with the natural air flow finds its way to the arctic. with snow forming on coal dust we end up with darker snow cover not the blazing white that makes you go blind from reflected sunlight. Not reflecting sunlight creates heat and at some point we reach a threshold point where the snow melts, the melting snow leaves behind all the dust and crap that was in it and this absorbs more sunlight causing the melt to speed up.

 

A plausible explanation that counters the theory of global warning. Never thought I'd see the day where those who don't believe in global warming, would would actually post another theory to explain recent phenomena. Thank you for posting. Do you have any links to this theory? I'd love to read more.

[Guest gbfisher]

does that mean ...less crap?

[holdfast]

Outside of North America its pretty well accepted that Climate Change is happening, its man-made, and its bad.

 

The fact its still an arguement here is mainly due to 8 years of oil executives in the White House, leading to things like this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html (The white house refused to open an email that a report attached the EPA sent them on greenhouse gases, so they could continue to deny its a problem). Here is a quick quote:

 

 

 

not that Canada has been much better over the last couple of years thanks to Harper and his crew

 

Since your so worried and Smug about it, why dont you do something. Sign a contract that you will not indulge in anything that is believed to lead to Global warming. Ill see you in Afghanistan somewhere naked, barefoot, digging in the sand with a stick, forging for food. Remember, anything you eat must be raw as a fire will leave a Carbon footprint. I betcha your so smug, that you sit in the dark once a year with your kids like their your little disciples telling them how good you are for the world by doing it once a year, and how I'm bad because I think its a load of crock. Like I said, I smell an election, thats why this crap has raised its ugly head. The Crazy Lefties are crawling out of their holes and spreading garbage.

[bushart]

Since your so worried and Smug about it, why dont you do something. Sign a contract that you will not indulge in anything that is believed to lead to Global warming. Ill see you in Afghanistan somewhere naked, barefoot, digging in the sand with a stick, forging for food. Remember, anything you eat must be raw as a fire will leave a Carbon footprint. I betcha your so smug, that you sit in the dark once a year with your kids like their your little disciples telling them how good you are for the world by doing it once a year, and how I'm bad because I think its a load of crock. Like I said, I smell an election, thats why this crap has raised its ugly head. The Crazy Lefties are crawling out of their holes and spreading garbage.

 

 

You know I ignored the first shot you took but you could'nt leave it alone could you?

 

You remind me of one of those monkeys in the zoo that throw crap at passerbys looking for attention