‘The extraordinary years have become the normal years’: Scientists survey radical Arctic melt


#1

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/13/the-extraordinary-years-have-become-the-normal-years-scientists-survey-radical-melt-in-the-arctic/?utm_campaign=b9cd34274e-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Carbon%20Briefing

**A group of scientists studying a broad range of Arctic systems — from sea ice to permafrost to the Greenland ice sheet — gathered in D.C. Wednesday to lay out just how extreme a year 2016 has been so far for the northern cap of the planet.

“I see the situation as a train going downhill,” said Marco Tedesco, who studies Greenland at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. “And the feedback mechanisms in the Arctic [are] the slope of your hill. And it gets harder and harder to stop it.”**

The article continues at the link.


#2

I’m bracing for the usual forum reception… :popcorn:


#3

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for the environment.


#4

If it is so dire like they make it out to be, why have no coastal cities been destroyed or flooded over yet?

Seems like they have been talking about the melting ice sheets for many years, but still places like NYC, Miami, etc they are still around, same basic sea level as its always been…?


#5

I’m a bit shocked they haven’t heard of ‘El Nino’ before.
Tell them it won’t be this extreme next year.


#6

The trend has been upward. 9" per 100 years for Miami. 11" per 100 years for New York. 24" per 100 years for Galveston. 10" per 100 years for Tampa.

“Dire” does not mean this decade or the next.


#7

If at first you don’t succeed, blame it on El Niño!


#8

Loving this information…


#9

Didn’t you read the OP? They got together to lament “how extreme a year 2016 has been so far”

El Nino year is always the most ‘extreme’ of surrounding decades, it should be a surprise, unless you are pushing an agenda.


#10

I was JK’ing, but the last El Niño wasn’t that long ago.

If the current one is so much more severe, then things really would be getting worse, non?

ICXC NIKA


#11

Of those, how many are sinking. Often that’s due to removal of ground water, like in Florida. But it can also be due to viscous land simply sinking under the weight of a city and not being replenished by flood borne silt, like New Orleans. If you stand on the N.O. levee, it’s very plain to see the city is below the level of the Mississippi.


#12

I am a little puzzled by the social/political aspects of this issue. unlike most scientific topics, there is almost an obsession to denounce, to ridicule, anyone who has a different opinion. Anyone who dares suggest the data are not there, or are being manipulated, essentially is kissing goodbye to any kind of career in science or academia, even if it has nothing to do with climate research.

Other science agendas are promoted based on factual content, how strong the data are, using logic. The Climate Change Crusade is promoted based on numbers - supposedly 78.6% (or whatever statistic they are currently circulating) of all scientists support climate change, therefore we must, MUST, purge from our midst those evildoers who lack the proper degree of frenzy. The reality is that this is a self-fulfilling prophesy: no one wants to be lablelled as a treacherous Climate Change Denier, so the opposition is mostly silenced.

I am not a scientist. The argument for global warming seems to have some merit. I just have my red flags up whenever the media and politicians create a FRENZY. This is not scientific objectivity.


#13

this is where I’m at… I’m looking and reading and thinking and listening! It’s the Frenzy that wants more money from US when the rest of the world goes on with life as usual…


#14

The reason I am suspicious over global warming ( other than the fact that hasn’t warmed in 18 years) is that the solution to the alleged problem is the same leftist agenda they have pushing for the last century - more government regulation and higher taxes


#15

It stems from the fact that Americans have swallowed the partisan politics lie hook, line and sinker. Most Americans believe that they have to choose either team blue or team red, and then uncritically accept every last lie that each team is forever spouting. This is part of American’s sense of personal identity, and fewer and fewer are able to free themselves from it. In order to be accepted as a member of team red, you have to fervently believe in a pervasive conspiracy theory orchestrated by team blue. And of course ExxonMobil and other corporate entities, members of the trillion dollar oil industry, North American Coal Corporation, etcetera, all aggressively plant stories in every “news” medium using public relations firms. The way these PR firms disguise lies and propaganda as “science” and “news” has to be understood, and I encourage everyone to research the subject to whatever degree they’re capable. I’d be happy to provide some book titles if anyone’s interested. And, of course, these are the same firms which run all election campaigns for both team blue and team red, and these same firms also sell us every foreign war of aggression, as well as running ongoing campaigns against Russia, Iran, etcetera. And people are taken in by all of this, because these firms are extremely good at what they do, employing methods and tactics developed over centuries by brilliant social psychologists, hypnotists and masters of crowd manipulation. And climate deniers are victims of this psychological warfare.

Travelling to the Arctic Circle will open one’s eyes, as will looking at maps of the Northwest Passage.

This is a more or less related blog post that came out today, and is worth perusing if you have the time.


#16

Why does every time a report like this comes out everyone asks why this didn’t kill them yesterday. Climatology and the effects of the climate study the long game people, not what’s going to happen next year, but in 10, 50, 100, 500 or more years.


#17

The whole argument of “counting noses” of scientists is preposterous. They claim that 89.4% or whatever it is this week, of “reputable” scientists, support this or that theory of climate change holds no water at all. Someone who expressed disbelief in this theory would not get through grad school. Someone who did get through grad school, would likely not be granted tenure. Those few who did get tenure, would not be considered “reputable”. So their views are discounted.

This is the same self fulfilling prophesy against those who express some level of acceptance of the theory of Intelligent Design. Those who believe that way either don’t get promoted, or learn to keep silent, so they don’t get labelled. Over time, their “absence” or silence of ID supporters is used to “prove” it to be wrong.

Many med schools now ask prospective students about their views on abortion. If the students are prolife, that is not an automatic rule out, but it is a strike against someone in a very competitive race. Thus, as time goes by, we are now hearing that most doctors are pro choice; the deck is being stacked. The fact that more doctors are prochoice is used as proof that pro choice is the medically advised position. There is no appeal to reason. No perceived need to appeal to reason, logic, morality, etc. Just count noses. And then filter out the noses who disagree with you.

That being said, there are sincere scientists finding good evidence for the Climate Change model. Sadly, their credibility is reduced by their peers, using political media to feed "the FRENZY. They need to separate themselves from the frenzy.

In the Law, this is called Jury picking.


#18

This argument makes no sense. It assumes that one’s position on global warming is fixed at birth. Why would you assume that someone who is destined to object to global warming would be so while going through grad school? Or when applying for tenure? Unless a scientist has totally abandoned his craft, his entire career is spent questioning. Why would it not be more probable that a scientist would develop his objection to global warming after attaining a solid position in science?

That is hole #1 in the argument. Hole #2 is the assumption that pro-global warming forces would naturally be in control of who advances in science. Why is that a reasonable hypothesis? If you look at who stands to profit from one position or the other, it seems that forces hostile to global warming have much more to lose, and therefore much more incentive to exercise control over science. Plus those same forces are much more powerful that the tiny green energy industry, which is the only sector that stands to gain from global warming theory.

Hole #3 is that if there were an effective covert force subverting the free inquiry of science on such a scale as you suggest, it would take an unbelievable amount of coordination, not only within the US, but across the world. It would take an organization like the Stonecutters to pull that off. But then, they are fictional.

This is the same self fulfilling prophesy against those who express some level of acceptance of the theory of Intelligent Design.

It is nothing at all like that. ID is not science. It may be true. In fact I believe it is true, just like I believe in the Incarnation and the Resurection. But it is not science.


#19

My brother went through med school, and he wasn’t shy about his views on abortion. Didn’t negatively affect him. :shrug:


#20

Commenter, I think you are making a lot of sense.

Does no one else sense, for example, that doctors *tend *to be terribly clinical about the decision to end a fetus’s life? My wife and I had the experience of a couple of doctors steering us toward abortion, in a very reflexive, matter-of-fact way, when an apparent abnormality was detected (I’ve heard from other couples with similar experiences–a disturbingly analytical attitude).

And does no one else detect from the media and the government-backed environmental agencies that there’s an obsession with imminent catastrophe? This weird bias has been apparent to me since 4th-grade science, when my 1970-ish book warned of global cooling. My fellow high school teachers have been guilty of perpetuating the same, forcing kids some years ago to watch Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,”

There is a clear tide which favors certain opinions in public discourse, and discounts or discredits others.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.