First time in human history, possibly no ice at Norh Pole

[WVUforREDSKINS]

For the first time in recorded history, the North Pole may be free of ice this summer, according to a published report Friday.

The unique prospect of sailing in open waters at the North Pole during the minimum ice cover in August and September has about a 50-50 chance of becoming reality, says one climate scientist's prediction holds true.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice — ice that formed last autumn and winter," Dr. Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., told The Independent newspaper in London. "I'd say it's even odds whether the North Pole melts out."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372542,00.html

Where's NavyDave with that Global Warming liberal conspiracy crap?

[Burgold]

That's freaky. Doesn't sound good at all. There have been so many omnious symptoms over the last ten years too. It's time that we stop looking beyond immediate gratification and see if we really are doing something and if so, if there is a way we can reduce our negative impact.

[Raub]

The pole is going to move in 2012 anyway.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

That's freaky. Doesn't sound good at all. There have been so many omnious symptoms over the last ten years too. It's time that we stop looking beyond immediate gratification and see if we really are doing something and if so, if there is a way we can reduce our negative impact.

I heard some guy on the news saying that this was a good thing because it will open up new trade routes.

[Sarge]

I call bull****

[DjTj]

Sorry kids, no Christmas presents this year.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

The pole is going to move in 2012 anyway.

When Quezacotl returns?

[Teller]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html

:yawnee:

[Zguy28]

For the first time in recorded history, the North Pole may be free of ice this summer, according to a published report Friday.

The unique prospect of sailing in open waters at the North Pole during the minimum ice cover in August and September has about a 50-50 chance of becoming reality, says one climate scientist's prediction holds true.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice — ice that formed last autumn and winter," Dr. Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., told The Independent newspaper in London. "I'd say it's even odds whether the North Pole melts out."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372542,00.html

Where's NavyDave with that Global Warming liberal conspiracy crap?

Can't be true, its from Fox News. :2cents:

[mjah]

I heard some guy on the news saying that this was a good thing because it will open up new trade routes.

And new ports and oil drilling opportunities for Russia.

Did the guy mention that part? Russia's new ports and oil opportunities? Yay!

And, of course, some people will call BS until after it happens. After all, it's better to be caught completely unaware than to engage in rational thought ahead of time.

The blanket BS call: The Luddite's Maginot Line against the evil forces of logic.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html

:yawnee:

OK. Now someone find the article saying that nobody knows what the **** is going on anymore?

:laugh:

[mjah]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html

:yawnee:

Wait, Fox News contradicted themselves?

Really? Are you serious?

Come on, now!

I guess we'll just have to let the North Pole ice tell us which of the Fox Flip-Flop News stories we should believe. I'm betting on the "warming" one.

[Teller]

I can promise that if the trend changes, as it apparently did by the largest amount in recorded history last year, the rest of my life will be dedicated to "I told you so's."

The condescention of the "all the scientists agree" crowd (i.e. bold-faced liars) might have something to do with the hostile reception on the other side.

[Teller]

Wait, Fox News contradicted themselves?

Really? Are you serious?

Come on, now!

I guess we'll just have to let the North Pole ice tell us which of the Fox Flip-Flop News stories we should believe. I'm betting on the "warming" one.

My only point in posting that, mjah, was that for every "OMG, we're gonna die it's too hot" scientist, there's an "OMG, we're gonna die it's too cold" scientist.

We don't understand fully all the dynamics at play here. And frankly, when the UN is saying it'll cost the U.S. $45-trillion dollars to do everything we need to to save the planet yeah, I'll remain skeptical a bit longer.

[mjah]

I can promise that if the trend changes, as it apparently did by the largest amount in recorded history last year, the rest of my life will be dedicated to "I told you so's."

I guess lots of folks will have to take a page from the Bush supporters' playbook, then:

It's a lame-duck theory. Stop obsessing on the past! It's over, sort of, and therefore it's the same as if it had never happened. Are you going to live in the past forever?

[mjah]

My only point in posting that, mjah, was that for every "OMG, we're gonna die it's too hot" scientist, there's an "OMG, we're gonna die it's too cold" scientist.

The article isn't making any "OMG" statements except for a fairly reasonable prediction that there may be no North Pole ice very, very soon. That's certainly an "OMG" statement, but one that will be readily measurable.

I agree that there are voices on each side. But having made no independent count of the number and qualifications on each side, I certainly am wondering how you determined that there's one "too cold" voice for every "too hot" voice.

How did you figure that one out?

[Teller]

The article isn't making any "OMG" statements except for a fairly reasonable prediction that there may be no North Pole ice very, very soon. That's certainly an "OMG" statement, but one that will be readily measurable.

I agree that there are voices on each side. But having made no independent count of the number and qualifications on each side, I certainly am wondering how you determined that there's one "too cold" voice for every "too hot" voice.

How did you figure that one out?

Likewise, can you confirm that that's not the case.

Look, I probably should've stayed out of the thread altogether, and I'm not here to pick nits. I'm just saying that this whole climate change issue, and all the variables, is beyond what we understand right now, IMO.

I mean, look, we've been in an extended cycle of decreased sun activity, and suddenly the temp drops .7 degrees. Well, that tends to support those of us who think the sun has more of an impact.

But I know there are just as many numbers on the other side. I don't claim to have the definitive answer as to what numbers, or whose anecdotal evidence is right. If I did, I'd be a much wealthier man, and probably not discussing the issue on a football message board.

[Teller]

I should note too that the federal budget last year was something in the neighborhood of $8 trillion. And again, the UN wants us to spend $45 trillion to stop something we haven't figured out yet. That's a lot of the incentive behind my big "no thanks."

Now, at such time as you can show me that that $45 tril will produce the precise, irreversible result we're after, then I guess I have to start raising some money. Y'know, bake sales and stuff. :laugh:

[mjah]

Likewise, can you confirm that that's not the case.

:laugh:

It was your statement, and therefore your assertion to prove.

It's highly entertaining when people throw claims out there that are completely unsupportable, and then try to put the burden of proof on someone else when they get called out. Hilarious.

Anyway...

I mean, look, we've been in an extended cycle of decreased sun activity, and suddenly the temp drops .7 degrees. Well, that tends to support those of us who think the sun has more of an impact.

I have no argument with that. It could well be the case. Either way, losing all of the North Pole ice for a time is a very visually powerful indication that something is happening. I think it's a good idea to keep all lines of investigation going, until we get a good grasp on the cause(s) of climate change.

[mjah]

Now, at such time as you can show me that that $45 tril will produce the precise, irreversible result we're after, then I guess I have to start raising some money. Y'know, bake sales and stuff. :laugh:

No big deal. We'll just borrow it from China. :whoknows:

[Teller]

No big deal. We'll just borrow it from China. :whoknows:

(Whom the UN seems to have COMPLETELY forgotten about.) :mad:

Is it global climate change? Or United States climate change?

[Teller]

:laugh:

It was your statement, and therefore your assertion to prove.

It's highly entertaining when people throw claims out there that are completely unsupportable, and then try to put the burden of proof on someone else when they get called out. Hilarious.

Fair enough. I thought I made it clear that I was using a phrase, not making an absolute 1:1 comparison, but if I wasn't clear, I apologize. I don't have the numbers.

However, there has only been one side trying to close down the debate. (i.e. ALL of the scientists agree.) I find that generally when one side doesn't want to accept the fact that there are dissenters, it's because their case is far less than airtight.

[Burgold]

I look at it this way. Where's the bigger danger.

If humans cause zero damage to the environment and atmosphere by pumping tens of thousands of tons of pollutants into the air, ground, and waterways each day, but you act to reduce the ammount of pollutants and toxins... all you've done is waste a bit of time and money (and decreased the cancer rate, rate of asthma and other toxin related side effects).

However,

If dumping tens of thousands of tons of pollutants into the air, waterways and ground every day is causing damage, then finding ways to reduce or minimize the damage we will be beneficial in every aspect. On the other hand, if the toxins are doing damage and we choose to do nothing, the results of doing nothing could be horrible.

See, with one hypothesis it's a win/win scenario (Earth is healthier and people are healthier). With the other, it's a lose/win scenario (Save money/wreck the environment). I'd rather play the hand where I win no matter which way I go.

[Larry]

My only point in posting that, mjah, was that for every "OMG, we're gonna die it's too hot" scientist, there's an "OMG, we're gonna die it's too cold" scientist.

'Course, the whackjob that you and Fox News quotes is such a whackjob that even Fox felt obligated to point out that his claims don't fit the data unless you ignore everything you don't want to see.

[Critics quickly pointed out that Chapman may have been "cherry-picking" the data. A strong La Nina formation in the Pacific pushed down January temperatures over much of the Northern Hemisphere from where they had been a year earlier, but average global temperatures are still much higher than the 20th-century average, and the NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record.]

(That iceberg must be gettin pretty small, when even Fox News feels obligated to mention that they're lying.)

[Teller]

'Course, the whackjob that you and Fox News quotes is such a whackjob that even Fox felt obligated to point out that his claims don't fit the data unless you ignore everything you don't want to see.

(That iceberg must be gettin pretty small, when even Fox News feels obligated to mention that they're lying.)

And I'm sure the "critics quickly pointing that out" weren't the ones telling me "all the scientists agree."

Was FOX pointing out that he was lying? Or were they doing what honest journalists do in a case that can't be conclusively proven -- pointing out that there are two sides?

FOX did not refute his hypothesis directly; so far as I can tell.