• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NASA Visualization Shows Decline of Arctic Sea Ice Over the Past 35 Years

Middleground

Middleground

2-Lipped Beaver!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
28,133
Reaction score
15,017
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is what has happened over the last 35 years. If anyone believes that the ice is growing thicker in the Arctic is beyond any hope of rationality.


[video=youtube;oTaRhCrzkEk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=oTaRhCrzkEk[/video]
 
Chancellor Squirrelhead will fix it with a sharpie.
 
Middleground said:
This is what has happened over the last 35 years. If anyone believes that the ice is growing thicker in the Arctic is beyond any hope of rationality.


Click to expand...


That is just insane. Really does put the urgency to act in perspective.
 
A 35 year time frame in an inter-glacial that is over 10,000 years old.

:lamo

There were long periods of far less summer sea ice than now, that you have ignored. Yet the world rolled on, the Polar Bears, and the Inuits and other far north dwellers are still here.
 
Middleground said:
This is what has happened over the last 35 years. If anyone believes that the ice is growing thicker in the Arctic is beyond any hope of rationality.


Click to expand...


Yet the antarctic sea ice has been growing for 35 years. Is Global Warming only northern hemisphere warming?
 
Middleground said:
This is what has happened over the last 35 years. If anyone believes that the ice is growing thicker in the Arctic is beyond any hope of rationality.
Click to expand...

And?

I mean what?

So there is slightly less Acrtic ocean sea ice about. So?

Where are the bad things about that?

There are obvious good things but I see no bad things.
 
Tim the plumber said:
And?

I mean what?

So there is slightly less Acrtic ocean sea ice about. So?

Where are the bad things about that?

There are obvious good things but I see no bad things.
Click to expand...
That, and we have no way of knowing what level the ice would be at, had Humans never existed.
 
Sunsettommy said:
A 35 year time frame in an inter-glacial that is over 10,000 years old.

:lamo

There were long periods of far less summer sea ice than now, that you have ignored. Yet the world rolled on, the Polar Bears, and the Inuits and other far north dwellers are still here.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree we are mostly responsible for the ice loss. However, I say it's from aerosols reducing the albedo of ice. Not greenhouse gasses of temperature.
 
Drawdown said:
Yet the antarctic sea ice has been growing for 35 years. Is Global Warming only northern hemisphere warming?
Click to expand...

Mankind contributes almost no aerosols to Antarctica.
 
longview said:
That, and we have no way of knowing what level the ice would be at, had Humans never existed.
Click to expand...

Which does not matter

What matters is that we have 7 billion people who have settled land, founded cities and farm based on general set of conditions we have today and for the last 1000 years (in general). Dramatic changes to those conditions could result in mass migration from a variety of factors, including crop failures, water supplies running out, flooding from rising sea levels. We saw what mass migration did to the political landscape in Europe, if the climate were to change drastically I expect that migration level would be dwarfed by could come, leading to even higher levels of political instability.


The earth itself wont care, but we sure would
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Which does not matter

What matters is that we have 7 billion people who have settled land, founded cities and farm based on general set of conditions we have today and for the last 1000 years (in general). Dramatic changes to those conditions could result in mass migration from a variety of factors, including crop failures, water supplies running out, flooding from rising sea levels. We saw what mass migration did to the political landscape in Europe, if the climate were to change drastically I expect that migration level would be dwarfed by could come, leading to even higher levels of political instability.


The earth itself wont care, but we sure would
Click to expand...
It does matter, because your statement implies that we can do something about the changes,
live greener, pay more taxes, use alternative power, ect.
If the events are natural, none of those things would change anything.
A more realistic approach is to do a real risk, cost benefit, analysis, and plan accordingly.
We do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle
for long, so we need to plan how to achieve that.
The crops are not failing, and sea levels have been raising at the same rate they were before the the CO2 level started increasing.
We have fresh water issues, but that is an overuse problem, not a climate related issue.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Mankind contributes almost no aerosols to Antarctica.
Click to expand...

It is a little more complicated than that. I raised the issue because it illustrates something the We Are Doomed in 18 Months or 10 Years or Something Alarmist refuse to acknowledge--the models have been wrong. The antarctic hasn't melted as much by now as the models predicted it should have and the sea levels haven't risen the way the models expected because the antarctic hasn't melted. There are lots of local weather and terrain factors involved, but it illustrates that we need more field research, etc. and better models to sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
Drawdown said:
It is a little more complicated than that. I raised the issue because it illustrates something the We Are Doomed in 18 Months or 10 Years or Something Alarmist refuse to acknowledge--the models have been wrong. The antarctic hasn't melted as much by now as the models predicted it should have and the sea levels haven't risen the way the models expected because the antarctic hasn't melted. There are lots of local weather and terrain factors involved, but it illustrates that we need more field research, etc. and better models to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Click to expand...

Climate models have proven to be remarkably accurate. If anything, they have been too conservative.

Overview - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.
 
Media_Truth said:
Climate models have proven to be remarkably accurate. If anything, they have been too conservative.

Overview - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.
Click to expand...

Your source refers to Antarctica only twice in passing and one of the times incorrectly states that it is losing ice when it is according to NASA, gaining sea ice Current State of the Sea Ice Cover
 
Drawdown said:
Your source refers to Antarctica only twice in passing and one of the times incorrectly states that it is losing ice when it is according to NASA, gaining sea ice Current State of the Sea Ice Cover
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that was published in 2018. There was ice loss in the Antarctic in 2018. Here's an early 2018 article.

New study brings Antarctic ice loss into sharper focus

The study also confirmed that the flow of West Antarctica's Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers into the ocean continues to accelerate, though the rate of acceleration is slowing.

As ocean and atmospheric temperatures continue to rise, it stands to reason that ice loss will continue to accelerate throughout the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom