Arctic ice cap 'to disappear in future summers'

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

But dude...they had tools. And they brought back data.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

It's supposed to have happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again...

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

it should be common sense that in order to project 10 years ahead, you should at least have data for more than one season in one selective area.

 

[EGGO]

But...I drive a Prius and pay for the carbon credits!

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

it should be common sense that in order to project 10 years ahead, you should at least have data for more than one season in one selective area.

I would suppose it depends on how precise your estimate needs to be. If you know the average temperature, you know how the average temperature is trending, and you know how much ice you have in some key areas, you can probably make a good enough estimate. Making a more precise estimate might not even make any sense since too many outside factors would come into play.

 

[cheezy321]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

it should be common sense that in order to project 10 years ahead, you should at least have data for more than one season in one selective area.

I would suppose it depends on how precise your estimate needs to be. If you know the average temperature, you know how the average temperature is trending, and you know how much ice you have in some key areas, you can probably make a good enough estimate. Making a more precise estimate might not even make any sense since too many outside factors would come into play.

Quoted to further explain my exact point.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

it should be common sense that in order to project 10 years ahead, you should at least have data for more than one season in one selective area.

I would suppose it depends on how precise your estimate needs to be. If you know the average temperature, you know how the average temperature is trending, and you know how much ice you have in some key areas, you can probably make a good enough estimate. Making a more precise estimate might not even make any sense since too many outside factors would come into play.

Quoted to further explain my exact point.

Except it doesn't.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sao123

yahoo is a very conflicting news source... it wasnt just about 2-3 months ago they published that we were heading into a mini ice age...

yahoo isn't exactly a place to get scientific news.
actually, no general news outlet, be it random internet sites or massive news corporations, are where you go to get science. Well, correction, you can, but it's either biased, simplified, or just a single opinion.

Scientific journals are where the good information is found.

Heading into a mini ice age is possible, but the fact is, technically we are IN an ice age right now. Permanent ice caps at the poles is not a "typical" thing for the Earth, but one thing fueling the ice caps now is the geology of the planet's surface, which has continents in places that there used to be no continents. Weather is constantly fluctuating because as the Earth's face changes, so too much the weather patterns, which have effects the general public does not readily expect or understand.
Our contribution to the atmosphere has an impact, how much is unknown, but in the end the atmosphere is currently causing climate change. Note, change. It will vary by region, as one region getting colder can fuel another region getting warmer. It's how weather patterns work. Only way to make the entire planet colder is to basically stop the weather patterns which deliver heat globally.
Making the entire planet hotter (on average) is done through atmospheric changes, greenhouse gasses specifically. But some regions, unexplainable to some individuals, will get colder even though regions further away from the equator (in comparison to a specific region) may be warmer.

There are a lot of variables that the impacts are just not understood thoroughly. It's the same reason why weather prediction is still not a 100% correct science. Climatology is a very very complicated and often unpredictable science because so many variables get plugged into the system that an individual variable's change can have a different impact every time if the slightest difference in other variables is also found.

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

No, since they're scientists, and not idiots like most of the American population, they get a head start from the established science that the earth is warming, it is warming more quickly at the poles, and the ice caps are melting.

I would assume that this report is nothing but a refinement on the estimate of how long it will take for the artic to be largely ice free in the summer.

it should be common sense that in order to project 10 years ahead, you should at least have data for more than one season in one selective area.

this isn't the first time research has been conducted...
they are building on all the past research and estimates and refining the prediction based on recent measurements.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

Get this, Professor Peter Wadhams is a leading expert in "Sea Ice". He was awarded his PhD in 1974 for "The effect of a sea ice cover on ocean surface waves". He was on the crew that completed the first circumnavigation of the Americas in 1970. He has researched and mapped sea ice for decades, both Poles.

He has recieved support worked for the offshore oil and Marine transport industries, as well as Office of Naval Research, National Science Foundation, UK Natural Environment Research Council.

Humor me then, do you really think 73 days of data contributed to his huge wealth of knowlege on the subject........or did he forget his entire career and just go with this latest data and fly off the cuff with some obviously biased hyperbole to please his latest benefactors?

 

[Regs]

Finally ,my ice popsicle stand in the north poll will start making money.

 

[yllus]

Meh, there are so many varied predictions about this that other than, "It'll probably at some point," none of it really registers anymore.

Below are two stories from National Geographic outlining how often the year we'll be Arctic ice free changes. 2013, 2030, 2040, 2050, 4010, whatever.

May 1, 2007: Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Predicted

Arctic Ocean sea ice is melting faster than even the most advanced climate change models predict, a new study concludes.

The work, published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used the models to retroactively predict sea-ice decline from 1953 to 2006.

Scientists then compared the results to what has actually been recorded by Earth-based and satellite observations during that time frame.

The team found that, on average, 18 climate models used in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimated the extent of sea-ice decline by a factor of three.

"We're about 30 years ahead of what the models show," said Julienne Stroeve, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

The IPCC report projects that the Arctic Ocean will retain some ice year-round until about 2050, after which time the region will be ice-free during the summers.

September 21, 2009: Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought?

This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say.

Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.

However, that scenario required Arctic sea ice to shrink at the record-setting pace of summer 2007, when sea ice coverage dropped to 1.6 million square miles (4.13 million square kilometers), said Walter Meier, a scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

This summer Arctic sea ice shrank to only 1.97 million square miles (5.1 million square kilometers). The 2009 drop is still the third largest on record, but it's not as big as some scientists had feared. (Explore a vanishing sea-ice interactive.)

Arctic sea ice typically shrinks in the summer and grows in the winter. It typically reaches its lowest coverage around mid-September.

 

[cheezy321]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

Get this, Professor Peter Wadhams is a leading expert in "Sea Ice". He was awarded his PhD in 1974 for "The effect of a sea ice cover on ocean surface waves". He was on the crew that completed the first circumnavigation of the Americas in 1970. He has researched and mapped sea ice for decades, both Poles.

He has recieved support worked for the offshore oil and Marine transport industries, as well as Office of Naval Research, National Science Foundation, UK Natural Environment Research Council.

Humor me then, do you really think 73 days of data contributed to his huge wealth of knowlege on the subject........or did he forget his entire career and just go with this latest data and fly off the cuff with some obviously biased hyperbole to please his latest benefactors?

Well there we go. Someone finally gave me the more info that I was obviously missing. Thanks for educating me more on the subject. :thumbsup: The news article wasnt exactly very 'in depth'.

This is what i was looking for.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: cheezy321
Why didnt they take data from the whole year? If you take data from the Northern Spring then wouldnt the ice already be in the melting process for the season? Then it would regain some of that ice back when the winter comes around?

/facepalm

Humor me then. Do you really think 73 days of data is enough to come to the conclusion that the entire ice cap will melt in ten years?

Get this, Professor Peter Wadhams is a leading expert in "Sea Ice". He was awarded his PhD in 1974 for "The effect of a sea ice cover on ocean surface waves". He was on the crew that completed the first circumnavigation of the Americas in 1970. He has researched and mapped sea ice for decades, both Poles.

He has recieved support worked for the offshore oil and Marine transport industries, as well as Office of Naval Research, National Science Foundation, UK Natural Environment Research Council.

Humor me then, do you really think 73 days of data contributed to his huge wealth of knowlege on the subject........or did he forget his entire career and just go with this latest data and fly off the cuff with some obviously biased hyperbole to please his latest benefactors?

Well there we go. Someone finally gave me the more info that I was obviously missing. Thanks for educating me more on the subject. :thumbsup: The news article wasnt exactly very 'in depth'.

This is what i was looking for.

His submarine blew up a couple years ago while under the ice pack measuring ice, killing 2 crewmen. He sounds pretty hardcore.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: sao123
yahoo is a very conflicting news source... it wasnt just about 2-3 months ago they published that we were heading into a mini ice age...

Would you prefer a news source that only published stories from one side of any issue? It's Yahoo's (and any new publisher's) job to publish items considered newsworthy, not push an agenda.

 

[Red Squirrel]

We need to stop polluting, end of story. Sadly this wont happen since people are greedy and it's cheaper to pollute and too expensive to go green. I don't think anything major will happen in our generation though. But in the next couple years maybe it will be a much more serious issue.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We need to stop polluting, end of story. Sadly this wont happen since people are greedy and it's cheaper to pollute and too expensive to go green. I don't think anything major will happen in our generation though. But in the next couple years maybe it will be a much more serious issue.

How much are you willing to give up for it? Car, TV, education, health care? Tell me?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We need to stop polluting, end of story. Sadly this wont happen since people are greedy and it's cheaper to pollute and too expensive to go green. I don't think anything major will happen in our generation though. But in the next couple years maybe it will be a much more serious issue.

How much are you willing to give up for it? Car, TV, education, health care? Tell me?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

No need to give up anything. Just need to improve what we have. Replace cars with all electric cars - make them cost the same. Replace all power plants with whatever is more efficient, probably solar, wind and hydro. Maybe nuclear if we can figure out the best way to dispose of the waste. If the money can spend billions of dollars every second for the iraq war and other stuff, then they can spend a couple billions here and there to help achieve these things.

 

[Chaotic42]

Anyone else looking forward to some fine Saskatchewan mangoes in the next twenty years?

Just think about how much food we'll be able to produce.

 

[Queasy]

Top Ten Reasons Why Caitlin Arctic Ice Survey Can't be Trusted

 

[SpanishFry]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We need to stop polluting, end of story. Sadly this wont happen since people are greedy and it's cheaper to pollute and too expensive to go green. I don't think anything major will happen in our generation though. But in the next couple years maybe it will be a much more serious issue.

How much are you willing to give up for it? Car, TV, education, health care? Tell me?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

No need to give up anything. Just need to improve what we have. Replace cars with all electric cars - make them cost the same. Replace all power plants with whatever is more efficient, probably solar, wind and hydro. Maybe nuclear if we can figure out the best way to dispose of the waste. If the money can spend billions of dollars every second for the iraq war and other stuff, then they can spend a couple billions here and there to help achieve these things.

dumb.

 

[Miramonti]

I've always said that roadside zoos need more polar bears.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Top Ten Reasons Why Caitlin Arctic Ice Survey Can't be Trusted

One reason Anthony Watts can't be trusted

 

[PingSpike]

Great, now my polar bear powered chariot sled is useless. I just got done paying that thing off.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Earth Has been around along time i'm trust that it knows what its doing.

And it will be here for a long time after mankind extinguishes itself.