No, the scientists are generally saying the summer ice will be completely gone by 2040, not 2019. Typical strawman from those who don’t actually pay attention to the science.
I think it’s important to provide sources, like:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/the-arctic-could-be-ice-free-by-2040/
which points to the Arctic Resilience Report website:
which points to the site from which you can download this 200-page report on the matter:
If you are really interested in what is going on with ice in the polar regions, reading this kind report will provide you with a lot of helpful information.
NO. The previous discussion on this topic over MANY threads was that the Arctic would be ICE-FREE by 2013 then it was 2016 and then 2019. Okay, now your “scientists” are saying 2040. Two questions: Why would this be bad? and, second, what actions can the world take to stop this? I don’t see how more funding for more conferences is the solution but help me understand how more such travel and bureaucracy is the solution. I am all ears.
Can you find me a single person (from this forum) who argued the Arctic would be ice free by those dates? On your multiple threads? Excluding yourself and your strawman arguments of course.
Why might it be bad? It feels like explaining to a kid what could go wrong with repeatedly poking an electrical outlet with a knife why it may be a bad idea. Worst case scenario, thermohaline shutdown
While this is the more interesting of the two questions, you need to resolve the first question before moving on to this.
Richard Lindzen who you quote, accepts the planet is warming, he accepts man contributes, he argues extent but should be noted he is an outlier within the scientific community in downplaying anthropocentric global warming vs natural variation. He is also an outlier with regards future predictions.
Are you looking for an exact time and date for the melting of the Arctic ice sheet, or can you accept it is slowly diminishing and likely gone in a few decades, or are you arguing, somehow and beyond all logic its growing?
Please do make your position clear and do cite references.
This is from four years ago:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50316/full
Does it really matter when exactly the Arctic will be nearly ice free in the summer?
Here is an easy-to-understand explanation:
Ironically, the fossil fuel industry, especially Russia’s, is benefiting from a warmer Arctic region:
Vay, I believe, first cited the study and was most adamant about moving the benchmarks from 2013 to 2016 to 2019 and now “we all know” that the prediction was for 2040 or 2050 or 2100 despite all the media attention given to this claim. So? Are we in agreement that we should no longer listen to the media when it comes to climate hype? Fine by me. Done deal. Given that it has also been argued during “inconvenient weather episodes” that at a MINIMUM 60 years are needed to chart a climactic trend, I am wondering why we are discussing this brief not quite 40 year period. The 1970s were VERY cold and so the end of this period is when you start your hyperventilating “the sky is falling; the sky is falling, er sorry, rather, er, the ice is melting, the ice is melting!!!” but the 1970s was not “normal” and the same types of Betsy wets herself anxiety ridden neurotics were warning about global cooling but NOW we all KNOW how ridiculous THAT was and scientists rather SCIENTISTS were NEVER making those claims. So, how about we take 1956 instead and then use that for a trendline on Arctic ice? or what about 1942? or perhaps 1921? or even 1895? I KNOW the satellite data has only been available since 1978 or 1979 but we have anecdotal evidence about the extent of Arctic ice from a number of sources in the shipping/fishing/research industry that does not align with “unprecedented” anything. In the meantime, I suggest hyperventilating further while re-examining the predictions of those on this forum since 2004 and ask: Who has been closer to reality on “climate change?” 13 years and counting and still … not the disaster it is made out to be… and the UN and other agencies continue to spend money and issue reports… not much has changed, eh?
To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.
I think it is important to find the most trustworthy and reliable sources available to get a better idea of what is happening. It’s obvious that the media has a vested interested in hyping up things. There are always individuals who, for whatever reason, make questionable predictions. So if you take the media away and the individuals who like the spotlight a little bit too much, what is left? You have to listen to scientists who observe, study, and research climate every single day. You have to listen to their predictions and suggestions. Who else can governments who need to make decisions listen too?
But science is not decided by “consensus” and this continued political insistence that it do so is religion not science. And what does the “consensus” say? That most scientists agree that the world is warming and that man has contributed xxxx undetermined amount to that warming but when it comes to POLICY prescriptions as to what to do, why is it only the failed, economic redistribution, leftwing, Third Worldist ideas that are given credence? What in any part of man’s history leads ANYONE to believe that a UN style bureaucracy will be the appropriate venue for solving ANY ISSUE, including global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!)
I am tempted to respond to that, but I want to focus on polar ice in this thread and I will continue to look for sources that I find most trustworthy to find out what is going on in the polar regions.
Look I get the German angst over dialectical anything but Gunther grass explains and absolves the German inability to leave the fate of the planet alone. After imperialism then naziism and then militant pacifism hoho we have militant environmentalism. Can’t you just get drunk and fuck under a palm tree without it having earth shattering significance? For haha fucks sake!
I am tempted to respond to that, but I want to focus on polar ice in this thread and I will continue to look for sources that I find most trustworthy to find out what is going on in the polar regions.
Why don’t we discuss for example the ice-albedo feedback and how that changes the polar ice? I don’t see any need to get emotional about things like that.
Of course it is, like anything else. Consensus reality. Whether one accepts it (in whole or in part) or not is up to the individual.
Can’t you just get drunk and
under a palm tree without it having earth shattering significance?
That privilege is reserved for octogenarian cat ladies and their mambo teachers (or students), so I hear. 
Here is a simple-to-understand explanation of the Ice Albedo Feedback:
http://enduringice.com/project-setting-sea-ide-albedo-feedback/#
Thanks to this thread I am learning new things every day. I find this fascinating.
1 Like
The cause and effect are incredibly complicated, Professor Lindzen that Fred talked about is actually someone who specialized in the albedo effects of cloud coverage.
Just talking about ice caps and from what you posted already, indeed the albedo effect, as well as other gas releases and perhaps the effect on the thermohaline current. When you take ALL the effects of global warming and their knock on effects as well as other factors like deforestation, it gets really complicated. I really do doubt how accurate models are formed, it seems we have best guesstimates, which are being sold as solid scientific theory, which is not right.
On the other hand, things like the Arctic ice cap diminishing is just an observable fact, to deny this is just being obtuse.
1 Like
SOOO glad you mentioned deforestation… cuz it ain’t happening in the US and other RICH DEVELOPED countries… In fact, access to kerosene, gas, oil and YES coal mean LESS MUCH LESS burning of wood and this, in turn, greatly reduces CO2 emissions while improving air quality and health.
Reforestation Rates
In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period. The trend in reforesting areas has been driven by organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation. Reforestation efforts were critical to maintain forest cover starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and they are the reason that there is a net positive trend in forest growth today.
Meanwhile, are they still practicing slash and burn, openly burning garbage every day and destroying the forests in the name of quick mushroom harvests in Southeast Asia? I may be wrong, but I’m under the impression that per country carbon emission stats are based on industry and motor vehicle ownership, not emissions; iow, the amount of carbon coming from certain countries is probably much higher than what people think.
Ah some negative impressions, but yes! Another good point. Raising carbon taxes in the developed world has often led to dirty, fuel-intensive industries moving to countries in the developing world THUS reducing automation and production in higher fuel efficiency countries, thus increasing OVERALL CO2 emissions but making leftwing, environmental warriors feel good about themselves. BUT who is to say that is not of greater value? Who are YOU to judge!!!
Here is another easy-to-read (not too scientific) summary of what is going on up there:
Fig. 2. Examples of feedback processes that amplify an initial near-surface air temperature rise caused by global warming. Red, surface albedo effect; blue, changes in north–south atmospheric and oceanic transport; black, effects of water vapor and clouds; green, effects of aerosol particles; purple, increased oceanic biological activity.
How the Arctic Is Unusual
The Arctic climate exhibits many unique features. For example, the Sun does not rise high over the horizon, and seasonal variations in daylight are extreme (polar day and night). Bright ice and snow cover provide a highly reflective surface, low-level mixed-phase (water and ice) clouds are quite frequent, and the prevailing atmospheric boundary layer is especially shallow in the Arctic. These special characteristics profoundly influence physical and biogeochemical processes and atmospheric composition, as well as meteorological and surface parameters in the Arctic.
Feedback processes that amplify an initial near-surface air temperature rise caused by global warming.
Several feedback mechanisms are particularly effective in the Arctic, and these generally increase the sensitivity of the Arctic climate system (Figure 2). The most famous and already well-studied feedback mechanism is the surface albedo effect, which reinforces warming over highly reflecting surfaces worldwide but is amplified even more in the Arctic. The increased near-surface air temperature causes a melting of the sea ice and snow cover. This reduced coverage, in turn, exposes less reflective surfaces, including open seawater, bare ground, and vegetated land. The less reflective surfaces absorb more solar radiation, which warms the land surface and the upper oceanic mixing layer, enhancing the energy fluxes from the surface to the atmosphere, which increases the near-surface air temperature even further.
The surface albedo effect amplifies global warming in the Arctic, and other changes might intensify this warming even further. Such changes include meridional (north–south or vice versa) atmospheric and oceanic mass transport processes and related modifications of vertical turbulent exchange of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere. A warmer ocean surface could increase the atmospheric water vapor amount and enhance the occurrence of clouds in the atmosphere, which warm the lower atmosphere by radiating heat downward. An increase in the abundance of soot aerosol particles could enhance the absorption of solar radiation both in the atmosphere and on snow or ice surfaces, further intensifying the warming effect. Biological activity changes in the ice-free ocean could increase the amounts of phytoplankton, which would also absorb more solar radiation.
There is not yet a consensus in the Arctic research community about the dominant mechanisms leading to Arctic amplification.These changes will have an impact on the unique atmospheric chemical processes taking place at high latitudes, removing short-lived climate pollutants and toxic heavy metals in the troposphere and controlling the stratospheric ozone layer. In addition, algae and phytoplankton production depend on these processes and their modifications, and the organohalogens they release into the atmosphere will also change.
Although many individual consequences of changes in these Arctic climate parameters are known, their combined influence and relative importance for Arctic amplification are complicated to quantify and difficult to disentangle. As a result, there is not yet a consensus in the Arctic research community about the dominant mechanisms leading to the phenomenon of Arctic amplification.
How did the Greenland ice sheet do this year?
It actually gained some, thanks to a hurricane.
Overall, initial figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year. If confirmed, this would mark a one-year blip in the long-term trend of year-on-year declines over recent decades.
The unusual year is mainly down to heavy snow and rain in winter and a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season. And the source of that bumper winter snowfall was the remnants of a hurricane that wreaked widespread damage 4,500km away in Bermuda.
So, overall, how has 2016-17 been for the Greenland ice sheet? Well, it hasn’t been a particularly bad year – the year-on-year decline of the ice sheet has been slightly checked. The 2016-17 season demonstrates how important year-to-year weather conditions in Greenland are in determining the annual SMB – showing that individual years can buck the long-term trend.
But while the Greenland ice sheet has seen a neutral, or small positive, change in ice for this year, it should be noted that Greenland has lost approximately 3,600bn tonnes of ice since 2002.
And, as you can see in the chart below, this has added about 1cm to global average sea levels.
GRACE data showing ice mass changes of the Greenland ice sheet (right-hand axis), and its contribution to sea level rise (left-hand), from 2002 to January 2017. Credit: Polar Portal