Reply to: Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[BlasterBates]

a snippet from a newspaper in 1895

[escapeUK]

I think the most worrying thing I ever read about climate change is that seed germination can be affected. Should we get too many days of warm temperatures in spring... something like over 21 or 22 degrees, it can cause the germination of rice and wheat to fail. We are getting warmer spring days all around the world. The last thing you want is 550 million Americans and 2 billion Chinese getting hungry. I see it as a race between temperature rise and seed selection for the most tolerant varieties. That's what I'd call the nightmare scenario. The world doesn't come to an end in a Terminator style cataclysm. It’s a slow decline of available food. I guess that means the like of Africa, South America and parts of Asia would be priced out of existence.

So the ice melts due to too many people, and then they all die as there is no food for them reducing the co2 and the ice freezes again. So what is the problem exactly?

[Taita]

Shell had to stop drilling again because of an unusual amount of ice around the area for this time of year. It's where the satellite measurements show open sea.

APNewsBreak: Shell halts Chukchi Sea drilling - seattlepi.com

Probably a warning from the Gods. Stop extracting and using hydrocarbons or else!

[BlasterBates]

Shell had to stop drilling again because of an unusual amount of ice around the area for this time of year. It's where the satellite measurements show open sea.

APNewsBreak: Shell halts Chukchi Sea drilling - seattlepi.com

[pjclarke]

Ultimately, it is the quality of the science that matters, not whether the research originates from a University, Greenpeace or Exxonmobile.

Which is presumably why the IPCC engaged an Exxon scientist -Haroon Kheshgi - as an expert reviewer and cited Exxon-sponsored climate science research in its most recent report...

ExxonMobil contributed papers on climate science

[IR35FanClub]

Been doing some catching up on the posts - I presuming we are talking about the Artic sea melting and not the Antarctic? I haven't gone off and read anything on the Antarctic, and haven't done so for a few years, but IIRC it's not expected to start melting at the rate the Arctic is doing as it has land mass underneath. The problem in the Artic is that each time the melt happens (which is natural to an extent) the rate get worse as the darker seas act as a positive feedback loop - trapping more heat and increasing the melt rate as it has access to the underside of the ice sheets as well as the edges It's almost as if should we stop all CO2 emissions now, it's too late. The artic will be ice free for several months a year, and some other feedback loops will kick in as they start drilling oil, previously inaccessible.

IIRC if the Antarctic melts we are screwed. Then sea levels will rise dozens of meters, not the small bit that the arctic will cause. That's because it's currently on land and when plopped back in the sea... well. I could go and Google but am too lazy but I recall silly numbers like 47m, or something like that, but it would take 1000 years to melt it all as there's so much. Then again, the original estimate for the artic being ice free was 2100, and that’s now looking like 2020!

I think Greenland was the more pressing issue - as it also is above land and can go through a more rapid decline again IIRC probably cause something like 7 or 9m rise on it's own. Again not an overnight rise, but this time just a century or two. That's why when looking for coastal property I'm looking at places just up the hill from the beach ;-)

I think the most worrying thing I ever read about climate change is that seed germination can be affected. Should we get too many days of warm temperatures in spring... something like over 21 or 22 degrees, it can cause the germination of rice and wheat to fail. We are getting warmer spring days all around the world. The last thing you want is 550 million Americans and 2 billion Chinese getting hungry. I see it as a race between temperature rise and seed selection for the most tolerant varieties. That's what I'd call the nightmare scenario. The world doesn't come to an end in a Terminator style cataclysm. It’s a slow decline of available food. I guess that means the like of Africa, South America and parts of Asia would be priced out of existence.

Last years crop failures in Eastern Africa are an illustration of what can be expected elsewhere. I'm not making the link there to climate change, even though I should, but it's too complicated. I'm merely using it as a picture of what happens after a prolonged drought. They were fairly lucky there last year. The internationally community responded ok, but for the first time the Kenyans said “this is too embarrassing we need to sort it ourselves”. The newspapers were reporting people sending their only 10 shillings (bit more than 10p) to help “Kenyans for Kenya” via mPesa their mobile money service - which we still don't have. People were taking cars trips from Nairobi on food drives collected from friends a family and basically took it upon themselves to make sure no one was starving to death. But what I saw was that this all depended on a surplus production of food internationally. Say all the maize flour had been bought for ethanol production, it could have ended a lot worse.

[Taita]

FFS Another 8 pages of dross. The arctic ice cap is at the lowest level ever. That is a fooking fact however you argue about it. And the usual cretins are on here again: a third rate wannabee rockabilly band member and a fooking agent. Basically thick fookkers. FFS

"The UN-ordered probe said a major overhaul was required of the IPCC, which was established to sift through scientific research and produce the most authoritative report possible on climate change for world leaders.

Glaring errors were revealed in the panel's landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report -- notably that Himalayan glaciers which provide water to a billion people in Asia could be lost by 2035, a claim traced to a magazine article.

The UN report called for changes to the IPCC's leadership, stricter guidelines on source material and a check on conflicts of interests. It said the chairman should become a part-time position and change with every review.

Pachauri, who has faced repeated calls to resign, admitted that the errors badly damaged the IPCC's credibility, but said Monday that the climate panel's member nations would decide whether to replace him.

Pachauri, a vocal advocate for tough action against global warming, also criticised what he called "ideologically driven" attacks on the IPCC, which he has led since 2002."

[IR35FanClub]

It is not possible to trust Greenpeace on matters such as these as you know fine well. One of their proudest boasts is that it's not the truth that matters, but what people believe.

i.e. propoganda

I'm ok with that - I think we have fuel companies on one side, greenpeace on the other, and the scientists and public in the middle.

If there was no greenpeace we'd all believe the energy companies. Amercia is crazy - they have a lot more political / policy / opinion leading adverts adverts over there - stuff like "have more CO2 it's good for you and the planet".

Greenpeace have to exist to fuel the debate and provide moderation. (Think Neo and Mr Smith). I think some stuff they do is mad and wrong, but some stuff is what the rest of us won't do (becuase it's illeagal) but needs to be done as what ever it is they are trying to stop has quastionable morals. Whether it's fishing for protected species or in a marine reserve, or climiting chimneys to hilight CO2 emissions if planning applications are permitted.

Beside it would be boning if there was no debate in society and we all agreeed with each other. I'm sure if all the worlds energy came from solar, and we had sustainable fishing and agriculture, income fairly dfistributed, there would something else we need to sort out. Like Simon Cowell having too much influence over the music industry.

[BlasterBates]

RealClimate: Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?

That's an interesting view point from a small group of scientists quoting a paper from 6 years ago.

It would be more balanced if you were to examine the viewpoints of other scientists in the paper I posted.

[doodab]

The point I am making, maybe poorly

is that these stories get the big headlines. The rebuttals and the failed predictions dont get the same headlines.

Its the continuous barrage of hype , exaggeration and fear mongering that annoys people who want the bare facts, and not the spin.

The OP link was more hype and spin in my opinion

If you want bare facts perhaps don't get your news from CUK?

[EternalOptimist]

In my experience neither matters. In modern life we are the centre of our own universe.

Fair enough. But next time they ask you to send money quick, or vote for windmills
remember,
they speak with forked tongue

[EternalOptimist]

I have a lot of respect for EO on these forums, but the first line of your "discrediting link" clearly says:

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

It's hardly lets throw it all away, everyone's just using propoganda; is it? ....

The point I am making, maybe poorly

is that these stories get the big headlines. The rebuttals and the failed predictions dont get the same headlines.

Its the continuous barrage of hype , exaggeration and fear mongering that annoys people who want the bare facts, and not the spin.

The OP link was more hype and spin in my opinion

[pjclarke]

Is there data on thickness, PJ?

Yes, though it is harder to measure than area and extent- so uncertainties are higher, however the University of Washington maintain the PIOMAS dataset which combines area and thickness to give an estimate of volume. No good news there, either, volume is down by 75% over the satellite era.

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2

[speling bee]

Where did you get 1% from? In the NSIDC figures, last year bottomed at 4.33 million sq km.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Whereas we are now below 4 million ...

Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

A drop of more like 7% in a single year .

Is there data on thickness, PJ?

[pjclarke]

According to the OP , there is 4 m km2 of ice, which is 1% down on last year.

Where did you get 1% from? In the NSIDC figures, last year bottomed at 4.33 million sq km.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Whereas we are now below 4 million ...

Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

A drop of more like 7% in a single year .