Arctic Climate Changing Faster Than Predicted

[enginekid]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazanski

Is it climate change or global warming? What are the kids calling it these days? Here's the deal, no one denies that the climate changes, no one denies that the earth warms and cools. Ice Age?

The problem is the thought that it is caused by humans and that we need massive overhaul of our lifestyles to prevent any kind of change. Those people either are in it for the money, Al Gore, or a so dumb that they think that we can influence the temp of the earth. Do not underestimate the power of a planet and it's sun. It will do what it wants to do regardless of our lifestyles.

Go to the IPCC website, download and read their Fourth Assessment Reports (AR4)

it explains everything about it. and you'll see how they define everything and their finding, conclusions, and recommendations.

[James Keith]

"Arctic climate change" sounds stupid. Is it getting colder up there?

Originally Posted by enginekid

I sold my car two years ago, so I have done my part. I doubt the melting would stop even if everyone on Earth parked their cars, I think we have reached a point of no return.

Transportation is between 20 and 30 percent of total energy usage. Scientists were calling for a fifty percent reduction a few years ago and now they're saying that won't be enough. You also consume electricity, heating, industrial products, food... that all took energy and provide your share of co2. These all need to be tallied up to see if "your part" has actually been accomplished.

[Gotti McCarran]

I'm not really surprised this came out in September



YouTube - AMSR-E Arctic Sea Ice Study July 2009

"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."

Slashdot | Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"

And by the way guys which one is bigger, the antarctica or the arctic?

Now you can go on with the holy catastrophy talk guys.

[enginekid]

Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran

Now you can go on with the holy catastrophy talk guys.

"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

try and stick with the global authority on the matter. they are non-partisan, unbiased.

i will repost this for you too, so you can read the reports: these are the definitive scientific reports by humans, on climate change

For those who think climate change is not occurring, the planets foremost group that has been studying it, says global warming is "unequivacably happening".

The group is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Who are the IPCC?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their last comprehensive study on global climate change was released in 2007, and it is called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), they are currently preparing to release the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) this year. The AR5 says that global warming is even worse now.

You can read the findings of their AR4 report from 2007 here in their Synthesis Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

A sample of thier conclusions called Robust Findings:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}

Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans,
are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changes
in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming.
As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the
acidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}

Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted
by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70% between 1970 and
2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations
of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many
thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the
natural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is
very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that
there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each
continent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}

Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely
had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes
in many physical and biological systems. {WGII 1.4, SPM}"

[TheMMAn]

Originally Posted by enginekid

try and stick with the global authority on the matter. They are non-partisan, unbiased.

lmao

[JonnyRingo84]

Originally Posted by MusterX

I don't claim to know alot about global warming but aren't there also scientists that claim the entire global warming issue is a fraud?

not exactly. the problem we have here is one of layman interpretation. far too many people are mistaking pseudoscience claims, and believing in mythology (both sides of the debate. yes...that means you). you would all do well to educate yourselves.

YouTube - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

YouTube - 2. Climate Change -- the objections

end thread

[possenti]

Originally Posted by James Keith

"Arctic climate change" sounds stupid. Is it getting colder up there?



Transportation is between 20 and 30 percent of total energy usage. Scientists were calling for a fifty percent reduction a few years ago and now they're saying that won't be enough. You also consume electricity, heating, industrial products, food... that all took energy and provide your share of co2. These all need to be tallied up to see if "your part" has actually been accomplished.

Maybe he can do more to prevent co2 emissions and quit breathing.

[MusterX]

Originally Posted by enginekid

try and stick with the global authority on the matter. they are non-partisan, unbiased.

i will repost this for you too, so you can read the reports: these are the definitive scientific reports by humans, on climate change

For those who think climate change is not occurring, the planets foremost group that has been studying it, says global warming is "unequivacably happening".

The group is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Who are the IPCC?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

I'm sorry but anything associated with the United Nations is most definately biased. If you have faith in it great. I just don't. They are not the only scientists or educated people on Earth, far from it.

I would say it doesn't really matter if you are right or wrong.

If you are right, then the end result is the same because the biggest polluters, China and India, don't give a fuck what you say, or the U.N. says, or what anyone says. They have no intention of curbing pollution of any kind.

If you are wrong, nothing happens anyhow.

Either way, its not realistic to believe that somehow the rape of the world isn't going to happen. Everyone in America could scrap thier cars tomorrow and start riding horses and the end result is the same. China and India have massive populations that are only getting larger and are run by people that aren;t into all this politically correct save the Earth shit.

[enginekid]

Originally Posted by MusterX

I'm sorry but anything associated with the United Nations is most definately biased. If you have faith in it great. I just don't. They are not the only scientists or educated people on Earth, far from it.

I would say it doesn't really matter if you are right or wrong.

If you are right, then the end result is the same because the biggest polluters, China and India, don't give a fuck what you say, or the U.N. says, or what anyone says. They have no intention of curbing pollution of any kind.

If you are wrong, nothing happens anyhow.

Either way, its not realistic to believe that somehow the rape of the world isn't going to happen. Everyone in America could scrap thier cars tomorrow and start riding horses and the end result is the same. China and India have massive populations that are only getting larger and are run by people that aren;t into all this politically correct save the Earth shit.

their contingent of top climate investigators have been studying it the longest, they have the largest global community of researchers tasked with this mandate.

if you think because the UN oversees their mandate they must be puppets of whoever control's the UN, and thus not to be trusted, than ask yourself, who controls the UN? The security council? So, if the security council or simply the USA is feeding them what they should print, than they most certainly would not be printing these reports that suggest global warming is severe requiring action. that's the last thing the countries on the security council want to hear, or deal with.

but you go ahead and listen to some loose band of rogue scientists that say global warming is no threat, just a myth.
,
i find it fucking astounding that the same people who laugh and scoff at people who don't trust the government with what happened on 9/11 reverse their roll, and try and say global warming is conspiracy. it's the same posters here i see your names you are always saying conspiracy theories are BS and only tinhat loonies believe in them. you same posters are all republicans too. i know because i read everything you type on sherdog. and here you are saying global warming is a global conspiracy. how can you live with yourselves

[MusterX]

Originally Posted by enginekid

their contingent of top climate investigators have been studying it the longest, they have the largest global community of researchers tasked with this mandate.

if you think because the UN oversees their mandate they must be puppets of whoever control's the UN, and thus not to be trusted, than ask yourself, who controls the UN? The security council? So, if the security council or simply the USA is feeding them what they should print, than they most certainly would not be printing these reports that suggest global warming is severe requiring action. that's the last thing the countries on the security council want to hear, or deal with.

but you go ahead and listen to some loose band of rogue scientists that say global warming is no threat, just a myth.
,
i find it fucking astounding that the same people who laugh and scoff at people who don't trust the government with what happened on 9/11 reverse their roll, and try and say global warming is conspiracy. it's the same posters here i see your names you are always saying conspiracy theories are BS and only tinhat loonies believe in them. you same posters are all republicans too. i know because i read everything you type on sherdog. and here you are saying global warming is a global conspiracy. how can you live with yourselves

I never said anything about global warming being a conspiracy. I just don't trust that mankind has the ability to determine what is going on with the planet. There are credible reports that global warming and cooling is caused by sun activity and has nothing to do with man. My question to you is how do you know who to trust? Are you just going by faith alone?

The planet warms, the planet cools. I think we both agree on that. What we might not agree on is the cause of such warming and cooling and also whether or not man can do something to stop it.

It has nothing to do with conspiracies IMO. It has to do with the scientific community being human, which means they also are wrong about alot of things.