Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
You are incorrect; you and I can debate the facts. We can use data, logic and documentation to defend what we think will happen.
And I do defend my 70+ year forecast with the historic sea ice extent data that has been posted here. There is clearly a measurable trend. Because your forecast is not based on facts you can explain, you have a harder time defending it. Your explanation of your conclusion seems to be no more than you asserting that the experts that agree with you are correct because you have faith in them.
Also, how did you get confirmation that the 'experts' are right from seeing the continuation of a 30 year trend? If we had in fact seen a significant change in the rate of melting, you might have case, but the assumed trend from the 2007 data that so many believers jumped on did not continue. Sometime your post make you seem like the kind of person that believes a psychic because they knew all about you (like how you love music, sometimes don't understand your girlfriend or boyfirend, occasionally get mad…).

Let me rephrase. You may well be right about Arctic summer ice lasting another seventy years, or LessHype may be right about it vanishing in thirty. Either way, the outcome is the same: we have undeniable proof of catastrophic warming, rising insolation creates a feedback that further accelerates warming, and the next twenty generations pay our debts and curse our graves.

Or...we can clean up our act now and prevent this catastrophe.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
So far, you cannot 'debate' worth a damn. You can only spin and blow smoke.

Really, I kicked your butt!

And I will continue kicking your butt when you bother to explain how you came up with your 30 year prediction (other than just saying it came from your belief that yet unmeasured feedback effects will make it sooner and somehow take that to means half the time).

Until then, you essentially have just given up.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me rephrase. You may well be right about Arctic summer ice lasting another seventy years, or LessHype may be right about it vanishing in thirty. Either way, the outcome is the same: we have undeniable proof of catastrophic warming, rising insolation creates a feedback that further accelerates warming, and the next twenty generations pay our debts and curse our graves.
Or...we can clean up our act now and prevent this catastrophe.

Where there is the problem, you need to be able to show we are causing it. I do believe that we are contributing to its decline, but are certainly not the only cause.

You also need to be able to show that we can change the outcome for less that the cost of what the impacts might be (minus the price tage associated to any advantages). Climate change policies that will likey have a significant effect are very expensive.

What did you have in mind? I usualy favor the policy changes that also have another justification such as long term savings, national security, or health reasons.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, I kicked your butt!
And I will continue kicking your butt when you bother to explain how you came up with your 30 year prediction (other than just saying it came from your belief that yet unmeasured feedback effects will make it sooner and somehow take that to means half the time).
Until then, you essentially have just given up.

It's funny isn't it how this climate crisis is always deep in the ocean or far away at the polar caps but after 23 years of ME not experiencing this crisis, going to Fla. every year to get warm, skiing, snowmobiling and shoveling snow for SEVEN MONTHS this past winter, I'm officially not convinced that this death by SUV gas is legit. In fact, I no longer tell our kids that they are going to die on dead planet.
The planet if fine, it's the people that are whacked.
What I find fascinating about global warming and climate change and global dooming is that the social factor of the equation is far more complicated and interesting and real compared to the so-called “science” of global warming.
SAVE THE PLANET is the “vital lie” en mass. This “vital lie” is that “we tell ourselves this limitless consciousness we have total control over, makes us our own personal Gods and is unfortunately dependent on a mortal mass of perishable flesh. It’s our greatest struggle as human beings.
But spreading this existential pain en mass via this SAVE THE PLANET psychosis requires two assumptions:
A: The planet is mortal.
B: We humans while not being real Gods can at least be God-like enough and strong enough to kill planets.

Two Ants on a Crowded Anthill:

Ant#1 “What you looking at?
Ant#2 “Can’t you see it? We must be doing something to the planet?”

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You still don't understand the terminology. The IPCC 'forecasts' are NOT predictions. They are saying that IFF the emissions are such and such, then the likely effect will be so and so. NOTHING says that THAT emissions scenario is going to ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Got it yet?

PREDICTION:

prediction [pr&#618;&#712;d&# 618;k&#643;&#601;n]
n
1. the act of predicting
2. something predicted; a forecast, prophecy, etc.

"Bu-bu-But I meant a 'scenario'

SCENARIO: an imagined or projected sequence of events, esp. any of several detailed plans or possibilities: One scenario calls for doubling profits by increasing our advertising, the other by reducing costs.

The arctic ice has melted before, it will melt again. Worrying about melting ice makes less sense than crying over spilled milk.

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's funny isn't it how this climate crisis is always deep in the ocean or far away at the polar caps but after 23 years of ME not experiencing this crisis, going to Fla. every year to get warm, skiing, snowmobiling and shoveling snow for SEVEN MONTHS this past winter, I'm officially not convinced that this death by SUV gas is legit. In fact, I no longer tell our kids that they are going to die on dead planet.
The planet if fine, it's the people that are whacked.
What I find fascinating about global warming and climate change and global dooming is that the social factor of the equation is far more complicated and interesting and real compared to the so-called “science” of global warming.
SAVE THE PLANET is the “vital lie” en mass. This “vital lie” is that “we tell ourselves this limitless consciousness we have total control over, makes us our own personal Gods and is unfortunately dependent on a mortal mass of perishable flesh. It’s our greatest struggle as human beings.
But spreading this existential pain en mass via this SAVE THE PLANET psychosis requires two assumptions:
A: The planet is mortal.
B: We humans while not being real Gods can at least be God-like enough and strong enough to kill planets.
Two Ants on a Crowded Anthill:
Ant#1 “What you looking at?
Ant#2 “Can’t you see it? We must be doing something to the planet?”

I understand your sentiment, but I do think it is possible we are altering the climate to some degree (pun?). In some case that might be needed, we pump water into deserts and cut down forests and make them farmland, we dam rivers and make them less prone do catestrophic flooding, we drain swamps to make the livable for humans. The net effect of our behaviour probably causes measurable changes in climate. My disagreement is that the rate of change and the probable outcomes are exagerated. People are alarmed and overreact out of fear. They support policies that make little difference enviromentaly but have great effect on people and the economy. When they exagerations are evenetualy shown to be false and the dire predictions fail people again overreact and ignore the real problems. In the end the alarmism and exageration makes things worse.

I would say that killing the planet would be way outside of our current capabilities. Even if we used every nuclear weapon we had, somehow caused an ice age, or poured all of our toxic waste directly in the oceans, we could not kill all life. We would cause masive devastation but you are correct we could not not kill everything. Perhaps someday we may have the capability to redirect an life killing asteroid away from earth, in that case we could also have the capability to destroy all life on earth. Short of that we just don't have the power.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you can't even stand by your own post.

You really ARE that stupid. Or maybe you need lessons in English comprehension?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
First you wrote "You cannot have DATA to support a FORECAST".

Exactly. The DATA does not support the FORECAST. The ANALYSIS and the FORECASTER suports the forecast. There is no relevant DATA in a forecast.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you write "Sure you can.[use data to support a forecast]".

Exactly. The DATA does not support the FORECAST. It can be used to CREATE the forecast as a forecast based on bullshit is not very creedible. And the "[use data to support a forecast]" is merely YOU confessing that you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Please get an education. You really need one as your current posts are a waste of time and effort. They are based totally on you not being able to READ ENGLISH or comprehend the meaning of simple sentences but [read into it things you ass(ume) or decide ought to be there based on your level of ignorance].

You are truly the most clueless poster I have come across. Not the most trollish or denialistic or biased, etc. Just the most basically clueless.

I Am DigitaP wrote:

"Bu-bu-But I meant a 'scenario'

Still dimwitted I see. The 'forecast' is DEPEDENT on the 'scenario' not a subsitute. Thus each 'forcast' is a calculation of the result of *if the scenario is such and such*. It does not PREDICT the future in any way. The scenario is NOT a prediction and the forecast that RESULTS from that scenario is not a prediction. No attempt at predicting the future was attempted which is why they had to develop a RANGE of scenarios and likely results ( forecasts) from those scenarios.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You really ARE that stupid. Or maybe you need lessons in English comprehension?
<quoted text>
Exactly. The DATA does not support the FORECAST. The ANALYSIS and the FORECASTER suports the forecast. There is no relevant DATA in a forecast.
<quoted text>
Exactly. The DATA does not support the FORECAST. It can be used to CREATE the forecast as a forecast based on bullshit is not very creedible. And the "[use data to support a forecast]" is merely YOU confessing that you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Please get an education. You really need one as your current posts are a waste of time and effort. They are based totally on you not being able to READ ENGLISH or comprehend the meaning of simple sentences but [read into it things you ass(ume) or decide ought to be there based on your level of ignorance].
You are truly the most clueless poster I have come across. Not the most trollish or denialistic or biased, etc. Just the most basically clueless.

You are the one that appear to have a problem with the English language:
The data DATA does support the FORECAST, it is NOT the forecast,
it is not IN the forecast, it SUPPORTS it.
The forecaster does not support the forecast, he (or she) makes the forecast.

As for putting words in your mouth, if you do not like the way I interpredted what you meant by, "Sure you can"? Tell us exactly what you meant. Here is how I came up with my intrepretation

I think it means, Sure you can use data to support a forecast based on your post. In post #160 you wrote "Sure you can." right after you included my quote "Northie obviously thinks that he can use data to support a forecast"

Please tell us, sure you can, what.

"Sure you can Northie thinks" - does not make sense
"Sure you can he can use" - does not make sense

Face it you contradicted yourself.

You are obviously upset because I have shown you to be wrong again and instead of defending your posts you are simply lashing out with name calling and insults. Does it frustrate you that I do not do the same?

Now, again do you have any data, models, or documentation to support your prediction of a arctic ice melt faster than the current rate?

Earthling wrote:

LessFact is back with his scientific insults.

dirtling is back with his racist insults.......... here are the pukey proud racist pig denier words of dirtling, earthling has no brain, eart hling (an alien has no affinity to Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for humans):

He no like transplanted euro injun killers. Lightsout have problem, jealous of mememine69, lightsout not get enough sex, maybe needs Bi-Lateral Orchiectomy, that solve problem, but may give him high pitched voice, can join tribal choir as soprano. Lightsout envious of Brian_G, lightsout not invited to belong to anyone's gang, lightsout sad person. Lightsout think Exxon bad medicine, he no understand way of world or how some of his tribe managed to learn to use internet. Lightsout very sad person. Lightsout have problem with humour, he no understand it. Lightsout think all world against him. Lightsout believe euro bad people, he no understand accident of birth theory. Lightsout put wrong baccy in peace pipe, drink bad firewater, make head fuzzy. Lightsong need visit medicine man, drive out evil spirits. Lightsong, him not religious man, he no understand forgiveness, only fear and hate.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand your sentiment, but I do think it is possible we are altering the climate to some degree (pun?). In some case that might be needed, we pump water into deserts and cut down forests and make them farmland, we dam rivers and make them less prone do catestrophic flooding, we drain swamps to make the livable for humans. The net effect of our behaviour probably causes measurable changes in climate. My disagreement is that the rate of change and the probable outcomes are exagerated. People are alarmed and overreact out of fear. They support policies that make little difference enviromentaly but have great effect on people and the economy. When they exagerations are evenetualy shown to be false and the dire predictions fail people again overreact and ignore the real problems. In the end the alarmism and exageration makes things worse.
I would say that killing the planet would be way outside of our current capabilities. Even if we used every nuclear weapon we had, somehow caused an ice age, or poured all of our toxic waste directly in the oceans, we could not kill all life. We would cause masive devastation but you are correct we could not not kill everything. Perhaps someday we may have the capability to redirect an life killing asteroid away from earth, in that case we could also have the capability to destroy all life on earth. Short of that we just don't have the power.

We do indeed have the power to cause a mass extinction, although not in our lifetime, and I can't imagine that our children would be so stupid as to ignore the dangers--which, in a few decades, will be very clear. The essence of the idea is that recent evidence shows that most past mass extinctions have been due to greenhouse warming triggered by CO2 released over many thousands of years in huge flood basalt eruptions, which occur every 20-100 million years; these CO2 releases periodically start a vicious cycle of other feedbacks that eventually release the vast store of sea floor methane hydrates, which kick the warming into overdrive and kill most life on Earth. We are a long way from melting sea floor methane, but we could very possibly start a warming cycle that would eventually do exactly that.

Read some paleoclimatology. It's a hot field, so to speak. I recommend Ward's "Under a Green Sky" as a starting point.

Here is a bit about the basalts behind most previous extinctions:

http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/portwig....

Brian_G wrote:

The arctic ice has melted before, it will melt again. Worrying about melting ice makes less sense than crying over spilled milk.

You need to cry over your bad Stephan King 'IT' clown make-up & get money back from your cosmotoligist.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
We do indeed have the power to cause a mass extinction, although not in our lifetime,....ky" as a starting point.
Here is a bit about the basalts behind most previous extinctions:
http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/portwig....

Northie, drop the comic books and slowly back away from the TV showing the sci-fi thriller - Revenge of killer CO2

==

IPCC reviewer
and climate researcher
and scientist
Dr. Vincent Gray,

an expert reviewer

on every single draft

of the IPCC reports

going back to 1990

and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001

“The [IPCC]‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is

to provide a spurious scientific backup

for the absurd claims

of the worldwide environmentalist lobby

that it has been established scientifically

that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate.

It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

==

Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in 'CO2 Famine'-- Increase 'Will Be Good for Mankind'

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now.

Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene [geologic epoch]– 280 [parts per million (ppm)]– that’s unheard of,” Happer said.“Most of the time, it’s at least 1,000 [ppm] and it’s been quite higher than that.”

Happer said that when CO2 levels were higher – much higher than they are now, the laws of nature still managed to function as we understand them today.

“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said.“You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that, you know, we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009...

Northie wrote:

We do indeed have the power to cause a mass extinction, although not in our lifetime...

Are you sure? How many atomic bombs have we set off since WWII? The US alone has set off more than a thousand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_... ). Have all those nukes destroyed the Earth, or even a single species?

Brian, you have an uncanny talent for ignorance, but at least you have a talent.

You're not engaging the argument, thousands of nuclear bombs have been exploded on Earth and here we continue with our argument oblivious to that fact. You think the Earth is delicate, I think it's robust. Earth abides.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
As someone who grew up in logging and who has studied forestry, let me make just one small amendment to your otherwise terrific points. If it is done sustainably, logging can actually boost carbon uptake, especially in temperate and boreal latitudes, because growing forests there consume more carbon than mature forests do. In fact, the global climate would likely be warming more than it is if not for the robust regrowth of North American forests over the past century.

About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares (that's 10,000 sq. meters multiplied by 16,000,000,000) disappear. The World Resources Institute estimates that only about 22% of the world's (old growth) original forest cover remains "intact", most of this is concentrated in three large areas: the Canadian and Alaskan boreal forest, the boreal forest of Russia, and the tropical forest of the northwestern Amazon Basin and the Guyana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Columbia, etc.).

Today, forests cover more than one quarter of the world's total land area, excluding polar regions. Slightly more than 50% of the forests are found in the tropics and the rest are temperate and boreal (coniferous northern forest) zones.

For millennia, humankind has influenced the forests, although much of the impact has been relatively minor. Today, the impact is enormous. Deforestation is expanding and accelerating into the remaining areas of undisturbed forest, and the quality of the remaining forests is declining.

You mention "sustained forestry", which entails replanting of logged lands, yet it is a shock to find that when you search for an example of an American logging company that replants the equivalent number of trees they have cut down you come up with a big fat zero number of results. You are wasting your time even further if you endeavor to find a company that plants two trees for each one it removes. It is nice to know the most intuitive, sensible means of practicing “sustainable logging” is hardly used anywhere, or at least not talked about.

In the past decade, the concept of sustainable logging...harvesting trees in a manner that is eco-conscious as well as eco-supportive...has brought the traditional bad guys of the forest, the loggers, out of the shadows into the light of redemption. Forest managers and green activists agree that logging can actually be beneficial to woodlands and are willing to support the industry on the condition they do it responsibly. The only problem is that the definition of sustainable logging has yet to be decided.

<cont. below>

Northie wrote:

Brian, you have an uncanny talent for ignorance, but at least you have a talent.

I am going to have to concede that I am in COMPLETE agreement with you on your assessment of "Brian_G", IF you can call that a "talent", which seems oxymoronic to me.