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

[Larry]

So, just out of curiosity:

If the prediction comes true, (Which I hope is a stretch. I'm remembering all the folks predicting that Florida would be wiped off the map by now by warming-fueled hurricanes.), and the North polar ice cap completely melts this year, your reaction will be?

[Teller]

So, just out of curiosity:

If the prediction comes true, (Which I hope is a stretch. I'm remembering all the folks predicting that Florida would be wiped off the map by now by warming-fueled hurricanes.), and the North polar ice cap completely melts this year, your reaction will be?

So we're glossing over the fact that FOX news didn't say the guy was lying. No problem.

Obviously, Larry, there HAS been a warming trend for quite a while. The polar cap melting completely would be VERY dramatic visual evidence of that.

It will NOT bring you, me or anyone else any closer to understanding why.

[Reic]

Eh, first time in human history, that ain't that long, and I do believe I am still living on the same earth. I do not believe it is that big of a deal.

But then again, I don't buy into the global warming scare tactic bull crap, either

[Larry]

So we're glossing over the fact that FOX news didn't say the guy was lying. No problem.

Obviously, Larry, there HAS been a warming trend for quite a while. The polar cap melting completely would be VERY dramatic visual evidence of that.

It will NOT bring you, me or anyone else any closer to understanding why.

No, Fox News said that he cherry picked his data.

However. Assuming it happens, and the North Polar ice cap melts, that would pretty much assure the extinction of Polar Bears (and, I assume several other species) in the Arctic, wouldn't it? Or should I hope that enough will survive on free-floating icebergs to repopulate the species afterwards?

Would that be a fair assumption: That if the ice melts, then there's going to be extinction of pretty much every land-based organism in the arctic? Or at least, to pick one, Polar Bears?

[Larry]

Eh, first time in human history, that ain't that long, and I do believe I am still living on the same earth. I do not believe it is that big of a deal.

But then again, I don't buy into the global warming scare tactic bull crap, either

Please feel free to answer my question: If the ice melts, do the Polar Bears die off? (At least the ones on the ice cap. I assume the ones in, say, Alaska, wouldn't be affected.)

[PeterMP]

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've deal with your link before, but will do so again. It is based one particularly cold Jan. (at least compared to recent history) to draw a conclusion, which is scientifically flawed for so many reasons its sad, but the biggest issue is there is no degrees of freedom (you have one observation so N-1= 0), which prevents you from doing any stats.

Now, let's look at the history:

Jan 2007: the warmest Jan on record since records were kept in 1880

Dec 2007: 13th warmest on record since

Jan 2008: 31 st. warmest

Feb 2008: 15th warmest

March 2008: warmest ever

April 2008: 13th warmest ever

May 2008: 8th warmest ever

All data from here and related pages (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#temp)

So you compare Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2008 and wait temps went down so global warming isn't real (let's completely ignore the fact that being 31st still puts near the top 25%), but very month around it has still been EXTREMELY warm based on history.

Now, let's look at some other facts. We've been in a solar min. since 2006:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/06mar_solarminimum.html

So why did the effect take until Jan of 2008 to show up?

and wait, we still are seeing very low solar output (I can't find a link quickly and don't have all night to look, but one was poster here. Do a search of 200 year solar cycle) Why did temps pick up if it is all solar output?

The fact of the matter is that even a cursoray examination of the data and information shows that YOUR IDEA that solar output is cause of the cold Jan. 2008 is completely ridiculous.

No one thing caused Jan. of 2008 to be cold and no one thing caused Jan. 2007 to be particularly warm and drawing ANY CONCLUSIONS (other than Jan. 2007 was much warmer than Jan. 2008) is so stupid it is laughable.

The sun does play an important role. Nobody doubts it, and you can't find a link where anybody intelligent has claimed otherwise, but study after study looking at solar output and global warming all end up coming to the same conclusion:

Any increases in solar output that have been observed cannot explain much of the warming we've seen over the last 30 years or so.

If solar output stays, low, will warming slow. Yes. But what happens if it comes back up the next solar cycle? We get really warm really quick, and that's just 11 years away.

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.

If you mean there are as many numbers on the other side that think the sun has an important impact on the Earth's temp., everybody does.

If you mean there are as many scientists agree that man had a signiciant impact on the warming over the last 1/2 decade as don't, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I've posted the dates these organizations were started before. Many of them date over 100 years old, well before the current enviromental movement. You can't find me an organization that portrays itself as a real scientific organization that disagrees that isn't tied to the fighting of the modern enviromental movement and therefore was not created later than the 1970's.

Some individuals disagree. To this day, some disagree with CFC's and the degredation of the ozone hole and that HIV causes AIDS.

We call them crackpots.

[twa]

Please feel free to answer my question: If the ice melts, do the Polar Bears die off? (At least the ones on the ice cap. I assume the ones in, say, Alaska, wouldn't be affected.)

Why would they die off?...They do not live off ice.

For possible reasons for the melting ,I think the massive volcanic eruptions along the ridge are a factor.

Curiously the timing of the melting and volcanic activity coincide...hard to believe

http://patdollard.com/2008/06/global-warming-or-simply-massive-under-sea-volcanoes/

Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.

The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.

But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth’s mantle onto the ocean floor.

Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.

[Larry]

Why would they die off?...They do not live off ice.

They live on ice.

If the entire polar ice cap melts, (and re-forms a couple of months later), then what did the Polar Bears do for those two months? Tread water?

[Koolblue13]

North polar ice cap completely melts this year, your reaction will be?

To start swimming?

[Larry]

To start swimming?

Actually, it's looking like the answer is "keep shoveling".

[PeterMP]

Why would they die off?...They do not live off ice.

For possible reasons for the melting ,I think the massive volcanic eruptions along the ridge are a factor.

Curiously the timing of the melting and volcanic activity coincide...hard to believe

If you read the article, you'd see it has been melting. It has sped up and it is very possible this played a role in that.

[Kosher Ham]

one climate scientist's prediction

Does he have any back up at all ?

[Koolblue13]

The bottom line is something is happening.

If the critics are right, nothing really lost.

If the critics are wrong, we're screwed.

This research should be a top priority.

[twa]

If you read the article, you'd see it has been melting. It has sped up and it is very possible this played a role in that.

If you read the article the volcanic activity began in 99,so yes it is possible it played a role.

Larry,they can ride the ice flows out or swim...they are quite capable

Of course it will not be good new for any people in the new areas :laugh:

[Koolblue13]

Of course it will not be good new for any people in the new areas

I bet your tune would change if it was your salmon they were eating.

[DeanCollins]

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.

"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.]"

surely you read the article that you posted

[PeterMP]

If you read the article the volcanic activity began in 99,so yes it is possible it played a role.

Are you agreeing with me or trying to disagree?

Anyway his general conclusion is still likely flawed as the samething his happening in parts of Anartica:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.html

"In 1993, we predicted that this was going to be a vulnerable ice shelf," says David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. "But we got the time scales completely wrong. We were saying 30 years at that time, and now it's happened within 15."

It would be foolish to say the underwater volcanoes are playing no role, but when you have two regions on separate polls showing faster ice break-up than expected, then you have to at least look at and consider uniting factors.

[Larry]

Larry,they can ride the ice flows out or swim...they are quite capable

Yeah, I'm aware that Polar Bears can swim.

But it seems really tough for me to believe that the polar ice cap could completely melt and re-form, and that, after it reforms, enough Polar Bears would be present on the new continent to be a self-sustaining species.

Granting that I'm talking out of my Philly, but my gut feeling is that if the cap melts and re-forms, then there's not enough polar bears there to keep the species going for 1,000 years. Eventually enough of them will drift in from Alaska, Siberia, or someplace else polar bear-ish, and they'll re-colonize it. But it seems really tough for me to believe it would be any time soon.

Which, in turn, causes me to conclude that the fact that Polar Bears are there, says that this melting hasn't happened for at least 1,000 years. (Because, to me, if the North Polar ice cap were a recent phenomena, it wouldn't have polar bear colonies all over it.)

And that, in turn, tells me that this event (if it happens) isn't just something to be shrugged off with a "well, OK, so it hasn't happened in 50 years. Could still be a coincidence."

[twa]

I bet your tune would change if it was your salmon they were eating.

I don't eat fish,they are welcome to them.

Bear are pretty tasty though

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Maybe we can genetically alter the polar bears to live in the desert?

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Maybe we can genetically alter the polar bears to live in the desert?

LOST is such a good show.

On a serious note, I posted this because it is stunning, however, I know that the earth is old and has gone through periods of cooling and heating many times. From what I understand (which isn't much) the debate seems to be whether or not human activity is causing the warming.

What bothers me about this extremely serious issue (if and only if humans are causing global warming) is that people are playing politics with this.

But, im not expert or even a novice on this subject. If there isn't any ice in the north pole we need to cut out the BS and do something if we can.

[Kosher Ham]

What exactly do Polar bears provide to the eco-system ?

[Koolblue13]

I don't eat fish,they are welcome to them.

Bear are pretty tasty though

Nice, set up and slam.

[twa]

Are you agreeing with me or trying to disagree?

Anyway his general conclusion is still likely flawed as the samething his happening in parts of Anartica:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.html

"In 1993, we predicted that this was going to be a vulnerable ice shelf," says David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. "But we got the time scales completely wrong. We were saying 30 years at that time, and now it's happened within 15."

It would be foolish to say the underwater volcanoes are playing no role, but when you have two regions on separate polls showing faster ice break-up than expected, then you have to at least look at and consider uniting factors.

I'm agreeing and disagreeing...we are simply speculating on the percentage of probable causes.

There is certainly more than one factor at work

example

volcanic activity

Arctic Oscillation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_sc/sci_north_pole_melt;_ylt=AmSVny7FrEFmtzp4CaDdsDXQOrgF

Then, this past winter, there was a natural weather shift called the Arctic Oscillation, sort of a cold weather cousin to El Nino. That oscillation caused a change in winds and ocean that accelerated a normal flushing of sea ice in the Arctic. That pushed the older thicker sea ice that had been over the North Pole south toward Greenland and eventually out of the Arctic, Serreze said. That left just a thin one-year layer of ice that previously covered part of Siberia.

Maybe even Global warming is a factor

___

[twa]

What exactly do Polar bears provide to the eco-system ?

Trophy's for the great white hunter?

They do keep the annoying seal population down, perhaps San Diego could host a few?