North pole to melt this year?

The scientists in the IPCC?

 

so is this going to be the year Paso?

 

Can you read a chart?

The IPCC predicted 2150. We are way ahead of schedule. My own prediction is 2040 +/- 10 years.

 

I was referencing the first, OP, post.

 

Then why did you put my name in your post?

The arctic is melting way ahead of what was originally predicted by the IPCC. This means nothing to you clowns though.

 

I have not posted on this thread in the pas,t as best I can recall.

IMO this whole Al Gore - Earth in the Balance, polar icecaps will melt and we all drown, global warming jihad is a bunch of PC scientific hooey.

You will not change my mind but feel free to flame away.

 

Paso,
Because you are one of the few who post here and I wanted your opinion despite the name calling.

 

My opinion is 2040 +/- 10. This is about 100 years ahead of what I think the original IPCC predicted. It is relatively dire.

I get that it is fun to ridicule the original post, but the reality is quite dire. The person who has been wrong repeatedly on this thread is actually mop.

 

In your opinion is it the CO2 as the main driver or is it possibly related to other items? Specifically as it relates to the Arctic melting.(and presumably freezing again in winter)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/uosd-sfa031015.php

 

There are weather patterns that cause some yearly variations, but overall the trend is global warming driven. It has always been a part of the models that the far north will warm faster. I do not know why this is, but it is holding true.

There is a recent study predicting that this will accelerate. I sort of have global warming fatigue so I have not read it.

 

Here is a recent global ice graphing:

 

mop:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...11a19c-c80e-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

 

The more I read the more I am convinced that 80% or more of all research dollars for climate related subjects be devoted towards surviving the extremes of cold and hot with the subsequent die-offs of temperature sensitive flora and fauna.

Read about the sudden, relatively speaking, 1000 year cooling cycle of the "Younger Dryas" interuption of the calm holocene. Holy f**k, we have enough to worry about rather than our, human, piddly little effects. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/49/19880.full

This **** is cool too(as well as the subsequent studies derived from it showing huge swings in the glaciers, climate, etc) http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/

 

The problem I see with many of the charts here is that the sample is too small. You can't predict based on a trend from the 1970's until today to try to make any type of predictions. Just given what I know about basic trends (which admittedly is very little), I would want to see about 200 to 300 years at a minimum. I would rather see a long view, say 1000 to 2000 years to see what type of predictions and trends could be seen. I wouldn't sell or buy stock based the charts show here, let me say that.

 

The trend on this thread concerns arctic ice. It remained basically unchanged for the last 2,000 years until just recently.

 

I am the first to admit that I am not familiar with this science, but how do you reconstruct ice area back all the way to 600AD? I cannot figure out how I could trust this graph. I can see extrapolation back for "awhile", but 1400 years !

 

Why not read up on the methodology used for the reconstructions? It is interesting science. There are temperature reconstruction going back thousands and then millions of years. I forget how far back the reconstructions on the arctic ice extent go back.

 

Here is a good start:

http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

 

recreations, by scientists attempting to prove a theory. I simply don't trust that. Just as my question is not about if temperatures are going up or down. I personally don't know, but I also do not trust those doing the supposed modeling. They are trying to say why they keep 'correcting' the taken temperatures up. Then there is the difficulty of linking human activity to warming. Some trends of warming started with the coming out of the last ice age. We didn't cause that, but it is a real thing. And I am NOT saying warming isn't a problem. Obviously, warming could have massive impacts on humanity and the entirety of life. I am a skeptic of human caused global warming, because I am skeptic of anyone doing work for which they make a living out of self fulfilling prophecy. Same reason I am not a fan of televangelists or politicians.

 

You don't "trust" science. Well, I guess we are done then. You are a skeptic because you have zero desire to learn or even read.

And comparing the scientists doing this work to televangelists or politicians is beyond pathetic.

 

smh....this thread is still going.....smh

 

I am suspicious of anyone that has to release and publish findings to get grants and funds to get paid, if you aren't suspicious then well you are just well......fill in the blank....

 

significantly smarter than you?

 

I like the history of the links to all of the science out there that this thread provides. With science there are projections with all that we know at a given time given the past. With this thread we get to see what advances there are as well as instruments and recording locations get added and manipulated, I mean corrected, to show the actual results.

When the science doesn't add up with the first method you can find other things to focus on to keep the narrative going. Don't like global warming then how about climate change? After all, how can you go wrong when you are saying: "look the climate is changing"?

I have learned a lot about a lot of the parts of the measurement of the things that affect the climate. There is rich geologic history that shows that without human intervention the earth can cool or heat with ferocity. We should, if nothing else, prepare for the coming changes in the climate whether they be times of extended extreme cold or extended extreme heat in certain parts of the world. And maybe expect that certain parts of the world will have their ice cream turn to **** because of those changes over time.

 

for some not so old history of the topic:

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/1/

That seems to be one of the biggest differences, in bold, between 50+ years ago and today in science. The scientists were careful to label what we didn't know along with what they were hypothesizing when discussing the future.

BTW, the article is 8 pages long and worth the read.

 

pasotex, I do trust science. I would even go so far as to say I believe in it. I would not say that I trust all theories of science, or processes of information. For instance, much of what I was taught about science in high school just 20 years ago has been reworked significantly. Quantum theory for instance has demolished what I was taught about atomic particles. Science has reworked the origins of life on earth. There is now more doubt about the Big Bang Theory, and is now openly challenged by the Rainbow Gravity Theory. There is now debate about the actual existence of black holes. I have heard that the universe is expanding, and contracting..... I believe in science, still though.
I believe in the TNF inhibitor medications that I take. They are great. I believe. But, I also know that we are often wrong, and science has a way to course correct. I am not a scientist. This much is true. I have openly professed that. But I am not unwilling to learn. Pasotex, you might or might not know this, but I am a pastor. So that gives some context for the televangelist comment I hope.

 

I am a casual reader on this topic, and have no defensible position of my own, but THEU, your comments display a pretty basic misunderstanding about what goes on in science. You seem to think scientists all agree on a "theory," and then spend their time attempting to prove it. One makes his/her bones in science by falsifying/negating/disproving the other guys hypothesis. When you can actually disprove a theory (that is, a former hypothesis that is now a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses), you are a big time star. This is what scientists try to do. They don't conspire to prop up "theories" that can be discredited (but for the posited conspiracy) - they work their asses off to destroy theories.

This approach to to attacking climate change proponents based on imagined conspiracies in the science world reminds me of the tobacco industries attacks on real science back in the 60's. Quite frankly, it makes me inclined to believe that those that are termed "deniers" are likely of the same ilk. I know some lay people will be persuaded by the notion that scientists are making this sh*t up for the money ("the big money is in meteorology research and grant money you know" [nodding knowingly]), but I would think that UT educated people would know better. Anyone who believes that significant numbers of university researchers, and NASA scientists shivering in Antarctica are tweaking their results for the money, and risking peer review humiliation, has never set foot in a real lab.

 

A great deal of valuable work is supported by grants and other funding models — work that has yielded real benefits to humanity, and might never have been done otherwise. You might find it worthwhile to spend some time educating yourself on the issue before criticizing it.