Greenland Ice Melting Five Times the rate it was in the mid-1990s

reply to post by wlf15y


carbon tax? really? You are using carbon tax as a reason? tell me how does carbon tax effect you or really anyone? taxes in general are accepted.. its the ebb and flow of an economy.. its just a politica point that really has no basis as any economist will tell you taxes do not change the marketplace or play a major role in growth or decline.. they may help hasten in various ways.. but its not a major play at all..

Deny all you want.. you have been fooled by propaganda yourself.. These "Oil" companies will go down the ways of Digital where everyone else was going the way of UNXX and MSFT that they felt their computer and software methods were superior? you can say they took a chance b/c they ruled the ccomputer world from the 1960s to the late 80s.. so they refused to listen to anyoen else and remained stubborn.. they were since bought out.. same with Kodak. they invented the digital camera in the 70s but couldn't get out of "old" habits.. just like you and these oil companies.. its old habits... the old ways such as fossil fuels got us here.. but they paid their purpose.. its over... however, fossil fuels i'm sure will always be used... and no one is losing any job and no one is paying any tax either!!

however, change is inevitable.. stick to paying $5 gallong of gas and only increasing.. b/c GW and believing in a healthy environment allows positive change for the better.. no one is forcing you to do anything or change your way of life.. that in itself is a perpetual myth.. there are too many people that care and worry for this to just remain silent.. since deniers have no concept of "tomorrow" and the damage we may cause can be so extensive.. you are willing to take that risk?? So, atleast there are others who do not want to take that chance... b/c I dont wanna sit around and wait to see what happens.. I dont need science to see what Man can do or has done.. i see it with my own eyes.. so you'll thank "us" later when your able to afford a solar panel for a one time payment of $500 - $1,000 to heat or cool your home for the remainder of your life and charge your car to drive to work.... unless you wanna stick to paying for all that oil??? or this doesn't make sense??

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
reply to post by bronco73

 

How would it become a desert? It has AMPLE precipitation.

Look up the word facetious.

Besides, it wouldn't be a desert, it would be completely inundated and several meters under water after the sea levels rise 4 miles due to all the ice on earth melting. Glow Ball warming.

Originally posted by poet1b
The odds of another Sandy hitting Manhatten in the next few years are pretty high

You do know the path that Hurricane Sandy took wasn't extraordinary right? That hurricanes often skirt the east coast and depending on other prevailing weather patterns in the area will either make landfall or turn out to sea. Using this hurricane as a model to back up your view is lacking, in my opinion. This isn't to say that climate is making some adjustments, there is ample evidence of this.

What there is not ample, nor conclusive, is the cause; anthropogenic or heliocentric or geocentric. Considering most data utilized to make the case is only decades old, with some evidence starting back a little over a century, against the back drop of the history of the planet's existence.

It isn't denying changes in climate or weather patterns, it is putting up healthy skepticism and demanding measured scientific study not skewed by either camp to make their narrative work best for their theories. Currently, anthropogenic theory is trying to make the data fit that view as is other sides of the argument are. It is hogwash and isn't helping anyone.

I'm trying to remember the last time the NY subways filled up with water. It seems like it has been a while.

Originally posted by spyder550
I'm trying to remember the last time the NY subways filled up with water. It seems like it has been a while.

Complete hyperbole and you know it! ---- Reread your statement and I read it in a different light. It seems you were inquiring and not being snide. Sorry.

Here is probably the last time that New York saw such flooding. The 1992 Nor'easter flooded portions of the subway system.

Here is a year that probably wasn't a fun decade in New York (1951-1960 Major Hurricane Landfalls. While not as common, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc, do see landfall. The surge of Hurricane Sandy was significant but I would love to see the correlation that any ice-melt, sea-rise, global temperature, etc was the cause of it.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I don't know if I would call the path Sandy took as extra-ordinary, in fact, my point is that Sandy was not extra-ordinary.

What was predicted, and what records are starting to show is that hurrican activity in the Atlantic is in fact increasing. It is only logical to speculate that this increase in hurricane activity will increase.

www.gfdl.noaa.gov...

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show a strong correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) (Figure 1). PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.

And I would add that global temperatures spike after WW II, and could be an explanation for the high level of hurricanes in the 50ties.

There is ample evidence that GW is caused by modern industry, but it is not yet conclusive. While our ability to study GW in the past is limited, technology does provide us with the tools to look back through the history of our planet, so while GW has only been studied for a a few decades how, we are also able to look back through history to expand on our knowledge.

I am willing to consider realistic alternative reasons that might be causing GW, but many what the GW deniers throw out is a lot of propaganda, with trumped up claims, twisted versions of studies, and cheap smoke and mirror tricks, which is not worth the attention. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but that is not what GW deniers provide.

Originally posted by poet1b
What was predicted, and what records are starting to show is that hurrican activity in the Atlantic is in fact increasing. It is only logical to speculate that this increase in hurricane activity will increase.

Yet NOAA even states we are in a recurring natural high-activity cycle. One that has been observed in the past and studied.

Hurricane forecasters remind us that a well-established climate pattern puts us in an ongoing era of high activity for Atlantic hurricanes that began in 1995. Since that time, more than 70 percent of seasons have been above normal, including 2012. Historically, Atlantic high-activity eras have lasted 25-40 years, with the previous one occurring from the mid-1930s until 1970. Several inter-related atmospheric and oceanic factors contribute to these high activity years, including warmer Atlantic Ocean temperatures, an enhanced West African monsoon, and reduced vertical wind shear.

And I would add that global temperatures spike after WW II, and could be an explanation for the high level of hurricanes in the 50ties.

What would explain the high level of hurricanes in the 30s (on through the 50s)? That would be the similar weather patterns the Atlantic Basin is experiencing now.

Agreed, from both sides. Each will use, as you said, ample yet inconclusive evidence to push their agendas. Hopefully IPCC doesn't let me down. I find committees such as these, that begin seeing funding from multiples of nations, will continue to exist even if their data says contrary to what they are supposed to find. I hope they take a steady hard look, keeping an even keel on the data.

Ran across this article this morning & thought it's information fit perfect in this thread.
Report Card for the Arctic:

thewatchers.adorraeli.com...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Yeah, and if you read the article in the link on hurricanes it points out that there is not enough evidence to show that GWing is increasing Atlantic hurricane activity, although many expect this to happen, and I think this will be a natural result of GWing.

I think the article at the op is a very important point we have reached. All of our latest and best technology shows that the poles are melting, and the rate is accelerating. The scientific community, however, keeps stating that this will have no effect for another century, while all the evidence shows that rates are continuing to accelerate. We are not looking at a hockey stick, we are looking at an exponential curve.

My personal prediction is that we will be seeing serious consequences of GWing by the end of this decade. Major changes in weather patterns will force massive relocation.

reply to post by SeekingDepth


Thanks for adding the link.

I see the Arctic as the key. Ocean currents are primarily driven by the spin of the Earth on its axis. Warming of the Arctic, and melting of the ice isn't going to shut down these currents. Surface currents will continue, and IMO, increase in speed, which is what we are seeing in the Southern Ocean.

What the very slow moving deep water currents do, is keep deep water cold. A point that some are starting to make is that if these deep waters heat up, then they will expand, which will expand the volume of ocean water, possibly very substantially. Now this will likely not happen for centuries, but it does give an idea of how much change can happen.

In the mean time, accelerating changes in the Arctic Ocean means accelerating global warming.