Arctic Ice Lowest in Recorded History

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pani, Aug 12, 2007.

  1. Pani macrumors member

    Pani

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/070810194355.ivrq9kyg.html

    This, and glacier loss is VERY scary. This is what should be splashed all over the headlines. No chance with corporate owned media. What was the top story in the Chicago Sun Times this weekend? Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitts visit to Chicago. Obscene that should be headlines when we are on the verge of so many crises. I am very glad I never had children because I would be SO scared for their future.

    p.s. I don't just cry about global warming, I actually gave up my car out of concern for future generations. Yes world, there are Americans who are not so effete we can't make sacrifices!
     
  2. CortexRock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Canterbury, England
    #2
    The key phrase here being "in recorded history"... which in terms of the existence of planet Earth is comparable to the volume of a gnat's fart in a hot air balloon.

    Nobody knows with any degree of certainty whether global warming/climate change is a side-effect of human action, or merely what was going to happen anyway.
     
  3. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
    #3
    It is SO sad that people can tell themselves this.

    Have you attended a single environmental studies class?

    EDIT: And Pani, way to go. I haven't yet been able to separate myself from my car (it's a bit tough when you live in a place like Vermont and Montana), but I drive a vegetable-oil powered VW. It's a good feeling to know you're carbon neutral and using a product that would otherwise go straight into the dump as a fuel.
     
  4. CortexRock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Canterbury, England
    #4
    For the record, I walk or cycle to work every day, and I recycle about 50% of my household rubbish. I could probably do more, but what I do is more than some.

    It will take a lot more than environmental studies lectures (which are based on opinion and research paid for 99% of the time by the corporate responsibility budget of multinational companies, or by political pressure groups like Greenpeace with an axe to grind) to convince me that climate change is solely the responsibility of human beings.

    Anyone else notice how 'global warming' has mutated into 'climate change' over the past couple of years? Could this be to account for the research which shows temperatures dropping in some areas?
     
  5. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #5
    That is cool. The world would be a much better place if more people did the same. I'm living in a place with little in the way of recycling. It's hard to get anyone to care about such issues when the desert makes an easy, cheap dumping ground. Also everything here is very spread out. It's more than 30 miles over a mountain pass to where I work. Fortunately this is all just temporary.

    As opposed to what? Where else are you getting your information? From scientists willing to take money from Exxon-Mobile if they can find a way to refute the IPCC? How would you even be able to tell if a source is unbiased? Also what kind of level of certainty would "convince" you? 70%? 80%? I find that people often form their opinion first and look for data to support their opinion. It is this very fact that has proven so easy to exploit by the corporations which would like to keep the status quo. Taking a page from the cigarette companies, they sow doubt in the public media and try to pay off scientists willing to provide a nice quote (like 3 in 4 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes).

    Yes, this was a deliberate name change because the propaganda machine of the "doubters" would latch onto any piece of data that showed cooling in some locality and put out a sound-bite that it was proof that global warming didn't exist. Global warming was always about climate change, the global average is getting warmer, but that doesn't mean that every square inch on the planet is getting warmer. For example, the poles are warming faster than near the equator, but again this is an average over each line of latitude. There are also other characteristics to account for: topography, ocean currents, moisture currents. It is all a very complex problem, which why most of the details are in terms of statistical results. These statistical figures usually vary less rapidly (i.e. more predictable), but are harder to express in simple, direct quotes suitable for public consumption.

    crackpip
     
  6. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #6
    I've recently done lots of research into climate change/global warming, i read through a lot of documents over at sciencedirect.com et al. So this article just adds to the long list.

    The end result of the research, well it is all still open to massive debate. My favourite quote "requiring knowledge in several fields such as astronomy and astrophysics, atmospheric dynamics and microphysics, isotope geochemistry and geochronology, as well as geophysics, paleoceanography and glaciology." (Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?” Bard, Edouard, Bard, Frank Martin, 09/06/2006 page 1). And those are needed just for this small area of interest. It really highlights the problems associated with understanding climate change. The interdependencies between all the sciences and small environmental impacts are so intricate it simply not possible to understand the causes at this time. Also the sheer number of scientists involved become overwhelming. For example in one specific case some scientists show that the sun is behind 30% approx of global warming whereas others show that it has no affect. It is a sum of a lot of causes. Also another point up for massive debate is the actual level of human produce Carbon dioxide compared to decaying vegetation, cattle, volcanoes etc. It is far too complex for someone on the outside to be able to judge the correct response and probably even harder for someone on the inside.

    There is some good even if the end result is that global warming is cyclic/natural as some propose. The more efficient use of resources.
     
  7. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #7
    I'm about a mile and a half from where I work. I thought about selling my car when I got here, but then thought to myself..."The jets I'm going to work for burn more fuel in a day than I will in a lifetime." Gave up on that idea pretty damn fast ;)
     
  8. CortexRock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Canterbury, England
    #8
    As xUKHCx says, unless you've got multi-disciplinary science degrees, the chances are you won't understand what the issues are anyway.

    I'll admit I haven't done a lot (if any) research about the reality (or not) of climate change. But I reckon I probably fit into a fairly large category of people who feel the same way as I do.

    I consider myself 'concerned' about the environment, but confused about what I can do (other than the recycling of household waste and not using the car to get to work).

    Any promotion of an issue this complicated is going to polarise opinions and rely on a certain level of 'willing belief' in a theory for that promotion to be successful.

    I'm not looking for absolutely irrefutable proof, just some evidence that doesn't have more holes in it than the plot of a Michael Bay movie. ;)
     
  9. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #9
    I haven't even bothered taking driving lessons as I can't see myself buying a car for a long time, I don't even cycle. It takes me 35 minutes to walk the 2 mile journey to work, there's a Co-op and plenty of other shops near my house. I take the bus to town and that's about it! I don't do this through ¨climate change¨ but more for my own health, which I suppose is a little selfish but has a benefit on the environment too.

    Oh, and low power computers/laptops. TV on my computer rather than on a large TV. Use headphones over speakers and I use my handheld consoles more than my regular consoles.
     
  10. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #10
    I don't drive my car to work.





    I'm also unemployed, but hey. :D
     
  11. bigandy macrumors G3

    bigandy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Murka
    #11
    Until we run out of resources such as oil and gas (which may take a while now there's this race for ownership of the North Pole), we're not going to see any big changes. In my view.

    I wish I could take public transport to work, but I've just landed a job 45 miles from my house. I live 2min walk to the train station, but via train the morning commute would take 3hrs instead of just over 30min. :eek:

    It's a sad truth, I think, but it's going to take some big disasters - hitting corporations and such, before anyone really takes note. :(
     
  12. cantthinkofone macrumors 65816

    cantthinkofone

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    #12
    Well put. How many years have we been recording temperatures? or how long have we even be able too? 500 years maybe? So that is a "nats fart in a balloon". When was the last ice age? About 10K years ago? I watched a show on ancient earth and what i found interesting that i didn't know was they said the climate on earth back in the pre-historic age didn't change much. temperatures were probably around 80 degrees F, and winter was almost non existent.

    Maybe this is how the earth works. We are warming up from a severe cool down. Hell, in 10k or more years they might be saying "OH MY GOD!!! ALL THESE LOW EMISSION VEHICLES ARE REEKING HAVOC ON THE ATMOSPHERE!!! ITS COOLING THE EARTH DOWN TO MUCH!!".

    And i love how everybody is using "global warming" as the explanation to the problems in the world. Every storm, every heat wave, every ice storm. The stock market plunges, you're boss is an ******* to you once in a while, you're kid gets sick, etc etc.

    Its part of life people, if you feel the need to break down and cry because the guy on the street corner told you you were going to die, well they have places and people to help you.
     
  13. Nuc macrumors 6502a

    Nuc

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    TN
    #13
    While I'm a very strong believer is saving the environment. Isn't it true that one (rather large) eruption from a volcano causes more release than all the gas we have burned since the gas engine was first used? It think the emissions are pretty close but I'm not sure. Anyways just food for thought.

    Nuc
     
  14. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
    #14
    Unfortunately, you're 100% correct.

    In so many fields, the world does not operate on a "pre-event" program, but rather a "post-event" one. Until corporations actually start losing money, they won't change their practices. It's unfortunately often the same way for governments, though some world organizations have been at least making efforts in anticipation of things to come. I just hope the "event" isn't too world-breaking.

    Just as Pearl Harbor initiated a response in even the most liberal Americans, and Katrina brought our attention to lacking disaster response programs. Unfortunately, the time scale of climate change isn't as instant and not nearly as shocking. When something so shockingdoes end up occurring, we'll already be neck-deep.

    ------------

    On a side note, why do people so strongly oppose the concept of becoming a little more environmentally friendly? If it's not climate change, it's waterway pollution, species eradication, overdevelopment. There are so many things that we've been doing wrong for a long time, and this is a great opportunity to clean up our act. How can one sincerely oppose that?

    EDIT: Nuc, I'd love to see some data on this, if you can find it. That would be a great thing to discuss.
     
  15. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #15
    Well what periods of prehistory? Obviously there was an ice-age around 10k years ago. That's a pretty big climate change from say early Egypt. But, yes since then things have been relatively stable.

    There is a lot more data than just written temperature records spanning the last couple hundred years. There are tree rings, isotope concentrations in ice cores and sea sediments, fossile records, magnetic signatures. There are quite a few things that are used as proxies. They calibrate them based on data from the present or recent history.

    The thing about this climate change stuff is that it isn't so much about absolutes like how warm it is compared to how warm it's been in the past (even though the media often portrays it this way), it's more about rates. We're pumping large amounts of CO2 into the air, the amount of CO2 is still a lot less than during the hothouse climate of the early Eocene. But the rate of increase appears to be unprecedented. What's more is that there is more evidence about rapid shifts in climate as several effects combine to form a feedback loop i.e. temps warm, more highly reflective sea ice melts, the oceans absorb more solar radiation, temps warm... There is a scientific consensus that this is a problem and we're playing a major part in it.

    Your hyperbole aside, this issue has permeated popular media. Now everyone has a strong opinion pumped into them by some news media outlet. The journalists are looking for sensationalist quotes, which of course drastically oversimplify the issues. Then the opposite side begins a rebuttal based on the oversimplified quotes, and soon we have a vicious cycle of dumber and dumber discourse. This even catches the scientists in it as well. There are scientists who have made great contributions, yet even they may cherry pick evidence and resist the tide of change like some old guy sitting on his porch complaining that a bottle of coke is no longer a nickel.

    I did some checking on this a few years ago when I was a graduate student. Mostly what we are worried about in the anthropogenic climate change argument is CO2. While volcanoes may put out more gases in general, and I'm sure more aerosols, it appears that the CO2 produced by all volcanic processes is actually less than the man-made CO2. I don't have the article anymore, and I don't have access to the geosciences library like I did as a student. But, this budget calculation included the Pinatubo eruption, which was a large one.

    Oh man, I'm rambling, hopefully I'll be more coherent in the future.

    crackpip
     
  16. cantthinkofone macrumors 65816

    cantthinkofone

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    #16
    i'm not sure of the time period. one of the ages in which dinosaurs lived. i can't find a list of the prehistoric ages, know where i can find one? The years of dinosaurs are so veg, i mean what is a few million years? :p

    I don't really understand you're second part fully. Are you saying its kind of like how somebody would say "this person said this about you" and then the go to the other side and say the same thing and start a feud between two people who had nothing against each other?

    And to the old guy on the porch, i would ask how much he makes now compared to how much he made when coke was a nickel. i hear it every time i go into the grocery store, "i remember when bread was 10 cents a loaf!" yea and they told you smoking was good for you too. Times change...
     
  17. crackpip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    #17
    I guess I'm saying that much of the debate is happening in the public forum. In the public forum debate isn't so much about who has the best evidence, it's about who can provide the best quote, the best sound-bite. The issue is debated in terms isolated details, which are supposed to refute the entire theory. It's more about PR firms battling rather scientists really considering all aspects of the issue.

    The most famous example of what I was trying to express is Einstein's dislike of quantum mechanics. A brilliant scientist, he really opposed the statistical nature of QM from a fundamental bias, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Despite his objections QM has become the most successful scientific theory ever in terms of observations matching predictions. In other words, even great scientists can fall prey to their own biases.

    crackpip
     
  18. cantthinkofone macrumors 65816

    cantthinkofone

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    #18
    :D so true. i love what that guy said before the first nuclear test..."we're not real sure if this won't destroy the atmosphere or not".

    And then there is string theory and how they want to learn how twist and mold the universe. some people can't be pleased. if you ask me, these will be the people to destroy us.
     
  19. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    The ignorance of some people in this thread makes me sick.

    Yes there are natural cycles in global average temperature, no they do not explain the extreme rate of change that we have observed in the last century.

    You don't have to have an advanced degree in multiple specialties to understand the basics, though if you did, you'd know that no reputable climate scientist would argue that what we're witnessing is not a grave situation, or that we don't have enough evidence to make strong conclusions and take immediate action.
     
  20. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
    #20
    can you say run on sentence with triple negatives? :)

    don't mean to weaken your argument, it was just hard to understand. continue, sir.

    EDIT: And I'm sorry, but Cortex- university courses are not in ANY WAY politically motivated, based in opinion, or paid for by corporations. You're totally incorrect on that note.
     
  21. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    Aside from all of that, the paleoclimate record goes back 10s of thousands of years. Ice cores at GISP2 in Greenland go all the way back 110,000 years. Temperature records are all there well before humans had any impact on the planet.


    Its better to dig around for the truth and not just listen to what's easiest or what you want to hear. Humans have made impacts on the planet well before the 20th century and we're going to continue to until something breaks. We can put a stop on it, but I don't think people will really start making a difference until it gets worse.

    I just feel for my kids and the planet we're leaving to them.

    D
     
  22. A Pittarelli macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    #22
    i agree mr anderson, the effects of humans have been effecting the earth for thousands of years - but right now its the worse and when something breaks something will have to be done. unfortunately nothing real will get done until someone stands to make a lot of money doing ti
     
  23. ghall macrumors 68040

    ghall

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    #23
    Hey all! I just wanted to thank the previous generations for such a well kept planet. I'm so glad that nothing bad could possibly be happening to the environment. :rolleyes:
     
  24. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #24
    Haha I was watching the Company on TV. The limits of my multitasking skill are rather obvious.

    The wealth of data stored in layers around the globe is absolutely fascinating. I wrote a hefty lab last year just on the Younger Dryas period, a 1300 year cooling that happened ~12,000 years ago. The way it and other such periods are recorded in the geological record tells us so much about the way the earth's climate system changes. There's some amazing stuff available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

    For the less raw-data inclined, I find http://realclimate.org/ to be an excellent blog.

    They posted a bit on the arctic sea ice the other day, with an especially telling graphic of the sea ice coverage (in purple):
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  25. megfilmworks macrumors 68020

    megfilmworks

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Sherman Oaks
    #25
    It is changing fast but I think we should all remember:
    Man is not destroying the environment.
    The environment will be just fine.
    Man is just destroying his ability to survive in this environment.
    The ultimate payback.
     

Share This Page