While America is freezing...

Warrigal

Warrigal

SF VIP
Location
Sydney, Australia
the Arctic is warming.

Global warming does not mean that the globe warms uniformly. On average it is getting warmer, and as a consequence weather/climate patterns are being disrupted with considerable impact on living things, including humans.

Winter ice in the Arctic nears all-time record low

Date March 14, 2015
Doyle Rice


As folks across much of the central and eastern US shivered and shoveled through a cold, snowy winter, the unusual chill didn't extend to the far north, where Arctic ice is at record low levels so far for the winter.
While no one in their right mind would describe the Arctic's weather this past winter as warm or even remotely mild, a large portion of the region did see warmer-than-average temperatures, according to Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre.

The warmth in the Arctic -- where some spots were as much as 7 to 11 degrees above average in February -- contributed to the lack of sea ice there. The average wintertime temperatures near the North Pole are about minus 22 to minus 31.
1426326606124.png


Sea-ice extent well below previous levels at this time of year. Photo: NSIDC

Sea ice is frozen ocean water that melts each summer and refreezes each winter. It typically reaches its smallest "extent" in September and largest in March of each year, and is tracked by the data center located in Boulder, Colorado.
As of the most recent measurement, the extent of the sea ice so far this month is the smallest on record, about 600,000 square miles less than historic (1981-2010) levels.

"If the current pattern of below-average extent continues, Arctic sea ice extent may set a new lowest winter maximum," the Snow and Ice Data Centre reported earlier this month. The previous record low for March was in 2011. Records go back to the late 1970s.

Why do we care about sea ice? Because it affects wildlife as well as people who live in the Arctic, the centre said. It also influences weather here in the US. Some recent research suggests the warm Arctic may have played a role in the crazy extremes of eastern cold and western warmth the states have received the past few winters.

The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been steadily shrinking over the past few decades due to man-made global warming, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Globally, even though Antarctic sea ice has gotten larger, sea ice has declined overall.

Essentially, climate change in the Arctic is occurring twice as fast as the rest of the planet, NOAA says. The warmth this winter also extended into much of Alaska, where the famed Iditarod sled dog race had to be rerouted because of the unusually warm temperatures and lack of snow.

USA Today

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...nears-alltime-record-low-20150314-14469b.html
Click to expand...
 

Thank you DW for this timely report. I'll admit that when I saw the title of your thread I thought you would be telling us about warm weather in OZ.

Your summary suggested the diminished Arctic sea ice "affects wildlife as well as people who live in the Arctic", it also feeds a positive natural feedback loop that further increases Global Warming because ice reflects more sunlight back into space than open water less ice means less reflected sunlight and more warmth.
 
For 10 or 20 years now we constantly get this message. Global warming is here. But in reality there is not much rise in the temperatures around the world and the oceans. Lets see, is there any really good temperature changes yet, other than this one time report for this year only, if it is true. Let us see about where this report came from. Boulder Colorado is one of this countries very far left thinking places. Where folks think drinking and drugs are OK and good ways to share life. Boulder is a place for those folks that live on the streets and in the mountains where they can do these strange things. I once lived and worked there but did move to another more level headed town 20 miles north where I felt my kids would have a better chance at living straight as they grew up.

What have I just said? That having lived there I think I know a bit about how biased those folks are. Modified or hidden data to build a certain thought process they want all to believe. This has been an ongoing way of thinking about how we will all cook in the daily heats. Been listening so many years to all this blather yet it does not seem any worse than 20 years ago. So if truly going to heat up, then maybe our great grand children might be the ones sweating. Certainly not in our lifetimes. But then, just before this warming scare got started we were having those scientist that were worried about an new ice age about to take over. This last winter in the US has seemed like the beginnings of the new ice age to many in the US.

Oh well. Just have to wait out another twenty years to see if any of today's predictions ever do come true.
 

I'm trying to remain open minded about the possibility of climate change. I do have to question it from a couple of different fronts.

Is it a result of man-made greenhouse gasses, or is it part of a natural cycle? Do our weather records, which are only a century or so old, accurately reflect a man-made trend, or is it part of a natural cycle and we simply haven't been keeping accurate records long enough to realize it? Is the data modeling software mature enough to really work, or are much of the conclusions based on speculation and guesses?

I'm not disputing the possibility of man-made climate change. But I'm also not ruling out the chance that it's a regular part of nature, much the way forest fires in California were before we began putting them out. We've caused more harm by putting out those fires than we would if we allowed nature to take it's course. Could the same be said for our efforts to stop climate change?
 
It seems as though all the arguments surrounding "Global Warming" are centered around whether or not it is Man Made. Rather than Global Warming, a more accurate description...at least in the short term...might be Climate Change. We are seeing more and more extremes in the weather patterns, and we will soon have to deal with these changes. Even if human pollution, and use of fossil fuels is causing these changes, there is very little likelihood that anything will, or can, be done to reverse these trends. It would be wishful thinking that we could cease all use of fossil fuels, so the best we can do is to try to use them in the cleanest and most efficient ways.

Perhaps the most pressing issue...here in the U.S., is the substantial changes in precipitation between our East and West areas. While California, and the SW regions are going through an extreme drought, the Eastern half of the nation is seeing increased rain and snow. If the California drought continues for another couple of years, it is going to have major effects on the entire nation. California has over 10% of the nations population, and produces much of our produce....AND is rapidly running out of fresh water. Their lakes are drying up, and the ground water is being quickly used up. The snowfall in the Sierra Mountains is Not sufficient to replenish this water.

Rather than sitting around arguing about "Man Made", our efforts would be better directed toward recognizing that these changes ARE taking place, and we should be looking for ways to compensate.
 
Don't want that to happen either. It will mess up our nice southwest desert country. All our rich winter residents will stop coming back for the dry heat in the winter.
 
NancyNGA said:
Maybe the scientists will finally come up with a way to make the rain spread out more evenly?
Click to expand...

Scientists have tried for decades to alter weather patterns...cloud seeding, etc., and their efforts have been nil. If this drought continues for much longer, California, and the nation may have to invest untold billions in desalinization plants, and that will take years to build enough to satisfy the needs. Another alternative may be to build a huge pipeline from the Mississippi river to the desert SW. Every day massive amounts of water flows down that river to the Gulf, and if just a small percentage could be diverted, it would probably serve the needs. Again, that would be a huge, expensive project and could take years. If this weather doesn't revert to more normal, that is years that California may not have.
 
Yes, solar and wind are helping...but even with major advancements in solar, it would take years to make any substantial progress. But, that doesn't do anything to reduce the Muck that is already in our atmosphere, and affecting weather patterns today. The drought in our SW, especially California, is here, and expected to last for the foreseeable future, and there will be some major problems in the very near future, if that region doesn't get some much needed rain.

The ideal solution would be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for transportation. I think we will get there, but probably not for decades. Meanwhile, there is going to be some major issues. Fresh Water could very well become the "New Gold" in many parts of this planet.
 
Some need to take a closer look at California and other western states. California already has water from the ocean desalinated and made available to the people. There are already, and for years, water diversions from the Rocky Mountains to western Colorado, Nevada, California. Los Angeles gets much of their water from central Sierra Mountains and canals it all the way back to Los Angeles area. I think the Colorado river is nearly pumped dry by the time it gets to Mexico.

Colorado has lots of wind mills for the power companies. But I don't think they are reliable enough for any power company to be able to shut down and not use energy to develope steady power. Here in Arizona we are having some very large solar collectors built, but again, what do they do on a cloudy day or at night? Not sure anyone is getting their moneys worth so far. And there is really no need for us all to do without good electrical power for full time use every day. Unless we wish to go back into the ways it was as I grew up in Ohio. Rules were quite simple. In summer you sweat. In winter we wore sweaters in the house and got very cold when we went outside. There was no such thing as electronic controls on furnaces or air conditioning for homes. Maybe that is what some want to go back too.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Or we could invest more in non fossil fuel forms of energy?

The USA is already producing more energy from wind than any other country. This, and solar electricity, should be encouraged even further.

http://aweablog.org/blog/post/a-pleasant-surprise-usa-not-china-is-1-in-wind-energy

Unfortunately my country is walking away from sensible action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata..._co2e_pc&idim=country:AUS:USA:NZL&hl=en&dl=en
Click to expand...


I've been astonished at how rapidly wind and solar have been gaining market share in the US. In part it has been encouraged by tax incentives but of course the government has been giving all the fossil fuel producers tax incentives for years and years. Two things loom ahead that might slow down the increase in renewables, first the sharp decline in the price of fossil fuels and second a possible Republican victory in 2016. Despite these possible roadblocks I think we have finally reached an inflection point in the country's attitude about global warming, at least I haven't seen any Drill Baby Drill bumper stickers lately. I really wish the media would start publicizing the really impressive advancements that Germany has achieved in moving from fossil to renewable energy sources.

I guess I'm a bit startled that OZ hasn't been leading the way towards renewable energy. OZ has certainly experienced some pretty dire global warming consequences what with droughts and wild fires
 
One of the reasons the US makes more wind energy than any other country is because we are about the largest country attempting to do so. Many of the European countries are small, like some of our states. Australia is near to the US in size but in population you have a long way to go to catch up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

Wind power in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wind power in the United States is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly over the last several years. As of the end of 2014 the capacity was 65,879 MW. [SUP][1][/SUP] This capacity is exceeded only by China[SUP][2][/SUP] and the European Union[SUP][3][/SUP] 11,895 MW of wind power was installed in 2012 alone, representing 26.5% of new power capacity. The U.S. wind industry has had an average annual growth of 25.6% over the last 10 years (beginning of 2005-end of 2014).[SUP][1][/SUP] Projects totalling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th quarter.[SUP][4][/SUP]
For the 12 months through December 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 181.79 terawatt-hours, or 4.44% of all generated electrical energy.[SUP][5]
...........................

To me, the 4.44% seems like a pretty small amount. I wonder how much more it can get too as many areas of the US are just not well suited for those windmills. And they trully are ugly when driving through rolling, tree covered areas, and come upon a area cleared of trees and filled with windmills. For me, they sure spoil the view when driving for natural beauty on vacation and other times. Where we grew our family, in northern Colorado, we did know about the windmills and knew what they were for. For the expense I am wondering if they will ever be able to pay for their own expense and upkeep over the years. I won't live long enough to hear the facts and truth in the years to come. Right now I believe they are only surviving on taxpayer moneys and little else.
[/SUP]
 
Josiah said:
I've been astonished at how rapidly wind and solar have been gaining market share in the US. In part it has been encouraged by tax incentives but of course the government has been giving all the fossil fuel producers tax incentives for years and years. Two things loom ahead that might slow down the increase in renewables, first the sharp decline in the price of fossil fuels and second a possible Republican victory in 2016. Despite these possible roadblocks I think we have finally reached an inflection point in the country's attitude about global warming, at least I haven't seen any Drill Baby Drill bumper stickers lately. I really wish the media would start publicizing the really impressive advancements that Germany has achieved in moving from fossil to renewable energy sources.

I guess I'm a bit startled that OZ hasn't been leading the way towards renewable energy. OZ has certainly experienced some pretty dire global warming consequences what with droughts and wild fires
Click to expand...

Two points - the price of coal is dropping rapidly and the consequence of that is to make it uneconomic to mine. A lot of money is being pumped into infrastructure - ports, rail etc - to allow huge new coal mines to open up in Queensland and New South Wales. The way things are heading it looks like these will soon become stranded assets. Unfortunately these developments are also threatening some of our best agricultural lands and being the hottest, driest continent, we can't afford to lay waste to any fertile land.

We could have been world leaders in innovative technologies such are wind, solar and hot rocks as a source of clean electricity but having an abundance of coal deposits, our governments have consistently supported the old industries over the newer ones. In short we missed the boat because of short sighted thinking.
 
Don M. said:
Yes, solar and wind are helping...but even with major advancements in solar, it would take years to make any substantial progress. But, that doesn't do anything to reduce the Muck that is already in our atmosphere, and affecting weather patterns today. The drought in our SW, especially California, is here, and expected to last for the foreseeable future, and there will be some major problems in the very near future, if that region doesn't get some much needed rain.

The ideal solution would be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for transportation. I think we will get there, but probably not for decades. Meanwhile, there is going to be some major issues. Fresh Water could very well become the "New Gold" in many parts of this planet.
Click to expand...


I watched a documentary just last week that was discussing that with the projected number of people by 2050 (9 billion I think) there's no way that solar and wind will ever provide enough energy for that many people. It said that to entirely power one house with solar requires the equivalent of 1/4 acre of panels. Who's got that big a roof (well if they aren't part of the 1% group).

It went on to talk about nuclear and the research and new abilities with it. I think the US researchers have come up with a model that can't ever melt down because it shuts itself down when problems begin. It also talked about new models still being worked on that will actually 're-burn' the waste from the standard type of reactors. I'm not sure if those are all the right terminology (probably not but hopefully it gets the point across).
 
The Antarctic Sea ice is indeed spreading out but what is happening to the continental ice? Is it reducing in volume/thickness?
I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question.
 
When you speak of the continental ice, which would that be and where? Are you speaking of Antarctic ice or other continental areas? I was thinking this article talked about ice over the entire area.s Did you click on the link on the page?
 
I did read the article, Bob, and I was talking strictly about Antarctic continental ice deposits.
The article talks about wind patterns but is fairly superficial in its treatment.
The question remains in my mind - is the volume of Antarctic ice increasing, steady or reducing?
It is a very important question, I think.
 
Warrigal, did you use this link. Now there's more ice at South Pole than ever
(So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!)

​

Well, now I can't get the link format to let me alone. I have gotten out of this mess before but forgot how. Click on the link and

Go to the newspaper scroll down to the pictures of emporor penguins and read what it says about the ice at the polar area. I read it to say ice is thicker.

Growth: Ice around the South Pole has expanded to cover a record area. Emperor penguins are pictured on the ice

Next picture:

Rise: For the last 30 years the amount of Antarctic sea ice has been increasing by 1 per cent each decade
........................

To me this says the ice in general has grown.

Wish I knew how to avoid or break this strange formatting. It is gone now but I did not do it
​
​
 
No it says the area of sea ice has grown. The thickness of the sea ice is not well known. You need both measures to calculate the volume and hence the total mass of the sea ice.
'The ice thickness is regarded amongst climate scientists as the holy grail of determining changes in the system,' Antarctic marine glaciologist Jan Lieser said.

'If we can determine the change in the thickness of the sea ice we can estimate the rate of change that is due to global warming.'
Click to expand...

We also don't really know the depth of the continental ice. Obviously it varies with the terrain which is itself not that well known. There is some suggestion that the continental ice is melting at the lower levels with the water flowing out to sea through ice tunnels. When a lot of fresh water enters the system deleting the salinity, the melting point of ice increases so this produces a feedback loop that could be protecting the sea ice.

It is very complex and it's very difficult to evaluate what is happening from the area of sea ice alone.
 
Co-incidentally I noticed a news report this morning about the melting of glacial ice in Antarctica. It's not good news.
It's in the Washington Post.


Tuesday, March 17 2015
Energy and Environment

The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse.
By Chris Mooney March 16 at 12:17 PM

A hundred years from now, humans may remember 2014 as the year that we first learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion more than 10 feet of sea level rise.

Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when we learned the same about one gigantic glacier of East Antarctica, which could set in motion roughly the same amount all over again. Northern Hemisphere residents and Americans in particular should take note — when the bottom of the world loses vast amounts of ice, those of us living closer to its top get more sea level rise than the rest of the planet, thanks to the law of gravity.

The findings about East Antarctica emerge from a new paper just out in Nature Geoscience by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France and Australia. They flew a number of research flights over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica — the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet — and took a variety of measurements to try to figure out the reasons behind its retreat. And the news wasn’t good: It appears that Totten, too, is losing ice because warm ocean water is getting underneath it.

“The idea of warm ocean water eroding the ice in West Antarctica, what we’re finding is that may well be applicable in East Antarctica as well,” says Martin Siegert, a co-author of the study and who is based at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.

The floating ice shelf of the Totten Glacier covers an area of 90 miles by 22 miles. It it is losing an amount of ice “equivalent to 100 times the volume of Sydney Harbour every year,” notes the Australian Antarctic Division.

That’s alarming, because the glacier holds back a much more vast catchment of ice that, were its vulnerable parts to flow into the ocean, could produce a sea level rise of more than 11 feet — which is comparable to the impact from a loss of the West Antarctica ice sheet. And that’s “a conservative lower limit,” says lead study author Jamin Greenbaum, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
 
I guess I will have to write to my a person who has been doing seasons on the Antarctica continent. Don't know if she still does that but might be worth the question anyway. So later, or maybe tomorrow I might have an answer from her experience. I do not trust much of the global warming stuff as far too much is based on political preaching. Many many years back they were telling us all about the many evil's happening to the world. Now we are still waiting for many of their predictions of 15 years ago to come true. So how good are their current predictions? I will ask someone I know and see how her response is. Am I a skeptic? You bet I am. And will be until we get the politics ot of the weather predicting and monitoring. Let the scientist have their world back and free to write as they will. We really do not need a UN group telling our scientist how to report. A couple years back even the UN group was saying it was all political garbage being printed. So what has changed?
 
It is a pity that such an important issue has been politicised by powerful vested interests.

I'm not so much interested in the predictions because with complex systems like weather and climate you will also be taking a shot in the dark. However, I am interested in the scientists' observations and conclusions about that is actually happening now. As more measurements are made and more data is collected we begin to get a clearer picture of our current situation. IMO, it does not bode well for the future.

You'll notice that the article in my earlier post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/) is about attempts to estimate the total volume/mass of the Antarctic ice and how it is changing over time. This is science, not politics.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top