You said this in an earlier post:
>>"When interrogating a subject as serious as this one is to all concerned, it surely must be approached with >>a completely open mind and an earnest desire to arrive at a logical and well informed conclusion,
>>irrespective of where that may lead one. "
This would imply that one should look at the evidence and truly try to understand what is being said. And in science, one must start with a skeptical eye. This is true simply to maintain the integrity of the science, but it is even more true when the policies being implemented based on the "science" have already cost us many billions of dollars that will soon be trillions of dollars. The policies are undermining the foundation of our economy and technology. Where the costs and dangers of global warming are certainly sensationalized, the costs and dangers of the anti-global warming policies are never discussed.
So let's take a look at your first reference with the title:
>>The Effects of Polar Ice Caps Melting
Read more: ehow.com
>>The Arctic could see ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century if the current rate of ice cap >>shrinking continues, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The largest block of >>ice in the Arctic is breaking into pieces, and the summer polar ice cap has shrunk some 20 percent since >>1979. Melting ice caps affect local residents and wildlife, and could have a far-reaching impact worldwide >>through rising sea levels and global temperatures.
The title certainly supports your statement about the polar ice caps melting. In the first paragraph they talk about the arctic shrinking. They use a trend based on a period from 1979 to now to suggest that the arctic could be ice free by the end of the 21st century. But why 1979? The answer is simple....that's when we started having satellite records of the polar regions. So, using a period of 34 years with no prior trend data, the NRDC has put out the dramatic declaration that the arctic could be ice free in another 90 year. The first thing a skeptic would do is ask "does the source have any bias?" Check em out nrdc.org
Do you think that the information that this group puts out is unbiased?
This only tells you how high to turn up the skeptic knob. Facts are facts, regardless of who presents them. So let's go back to the 1979 thing. 34 years is meaningless in geologic time. It is even more meaningless when there is absolutely no attempt to show longer term trends. But you want us to keep an open mind...so can we at least ask if there is any evidence that, in the past, the arctic polar ice has shrunk to the levels that we are seeing? You might want to look into the Franklin Expedition and the HMS Investigator. And you might look into an attempt this year to navigate the northwest passage. (an interesting side note of no particular significance is that in a couple of months, I am going to be going to the destination of this summer's failed passage attempt (Milne Inlet on Baffin Island)). I think that what you will find is that even without man's environmental influence, the polar regions have had less ice in the fairly recent past. In other words, projecting a trend that results in a calamitous event, based on 34 years of data is not science. It is irresponsible propaganda.
On to the second paragraph
>>Research carried out by scientists at NASA shows that melting ice caps have an effect on the Earth's >>climate. The polar ice caps that cover the top and bottom of the Earth reflect sunlight into space. When >>the ice caps recede due to melting, the sunlight is absorbed by the ocean and land instead of being >>reflected back to space. As a result, the planet becomes warmer, more ice melts and the cycle repeats >>itself. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cites a study on its website produced by the Arctic >>Council which states that in recent decades the average temperature in the Arctic has risen at nearly >>double the rate of temperatures elsewhere in the world. This warming is evidenced by melting of glaciers >>and sea ice, which affects the climate system through such phenomena as increased acidity in the ocean >>and an uptake in greenhouse gases.
This paragraph talks about the albedo coefficient of the planet. The more white surface (snow and ice) on the planet, the more of sun's energy that is reflected into the atmosphere rather than absorbed. So the more that the surface area of the ice in polar regions decreases through melting, the more of the sun's energy the earth absorbs. Your reference title mentions ice "caps", but it has only addressed the arctic so far. But let's assume that antarctic ice is melting...and let's throw in Greenland too. Is there any other effect other than a decreasing albedo?
It's times like this when I like to go back to the basics...kitchen science. Let's say that you have a nice cup of boiling hot tea. What happens if you put an ice cube in the cup of tea? A climatologist would tell you that the ice melts and the fluid level rises. A scientist would tell you that there would be several observable reactions. The ice melts, the level of fluids in the cup rises, the tea gets cooler and the tea becomes diluted.
Now let's apply this to the ocean. You stated that the oceans are getting warmer and the polar ice caps are melting. And of course, heat sequestration in the oceans is a common theme of the CAGW movement. Have you ever seen any reference to the cooling effect on ocean waters by the release of the sequestered "cold"? (the location of the continent of Antarctica over the south pole and the proximity of Greenland to the north pole are what assures that, no matter what we do, we are stuck in a glacial/inter-glacial cycle that strongly favors ice age conditions). Common sense suggest that melting continental ice will have an overall cooling effect on the ocean water. But there's more. Salt water has a colder freeze temperature than fresh water. Therefore when the continental ice melts, it dilutes the salt water, which in turn allows the ocean water to freeze at a higher temperature. Why are these parts of the climate equation never mentioned. Don't you think that adding enough water to the oceans to raise sea levels 6 feet or 3 feet or whatever the prevailing amount is, would be enough to have a cooling and diluting effect on the oceans?
And the next paragraph
>>The NRDC notes on its website that the melting Arctic ice caps could have an impact on the Earth's sea >>levels. As ice sheets and glaciers melt, oceans around the world rise. These rising sea levels result in >>freshwater contamination, flooding and beach erosion. Rising sea levels could have a devastating impact >>on island nations and cities such as the Maldives or Shanghai that are at or near sea level. In the U.S., a >>3-foot level sea rise—which could occur by the year 2100—would result in the inundation of more than >>22,000 square miles of land along the Gulf Coast.
Time for kitchen science again. Get a glass of water, put a couple of ice cubes in the glass. Now draw a line on the glass with a sharpie at the water level. Now...wait a couple of hours or until the ice has melted. Observe whether the water level has changed. Did the water level go up? down? unchanged? My bet is that it was unchanged.
Arctic ice is sea ice. Melting and Freezing of sea ice has absolutely no effect on sea level.
The NRDC refers to the dilutive effects as "freshwater contamination". Do you consider these to be loaded or suggestive words that have a negative connotation? Outside of the catastrophic predictions for island and low lying areas, which are highly speculative, let's look at the numbers. The mention 3' rise in sea levels in the next 84 years. That's .41" per year. Do you think that we are seeing sea levels rise an inch every 2.5 years? In recent years, the most extreme amount of rise in sea level is 3mm in a year. So, based on an assumed trend based on the most extreme rise in sea level, the number that they chose (3' in 90 years) is exaggerated by at least 300%. Is that good science? Or is it sensationalizing with an agenda?
Next paragraph
>>The melting polar ice caps have a wide-ranging impact on ecosystems. Migratory animal species that >>depend on the Arctic as a place to feed and reproduce are negatively affected by a loss of sea ice. >>Species that are native to the Arctic, such as polar bears and seals, are particularly hard hit by sea ice >>reduction. As ice disappears, trees that grow in their place would absorb sunlight and contribute to the >>warming in the area, according to the EPA. People living in the Arctic region may see buildings and >>workplaces destabilized due to the thawing of frozen ground. Along coastlines, villages are in danger of >>being flooded.
Think about what this paragraph says. Animals that migrate to the arctic, do so in the summer months. They do it specifically because of the nutrient rich upwelling that becomes available when the ice melts. And there is absolutely no evidence that polar bears and seals are negatively impacted by sea ice reduction. The next one is even more fun. "As the ice disappears, trees that grow in their place absorb sunlight and contribute to warming in the area"....think about this one. Let's ponder the hardy trees that will grow at -13,000' below sea level of the north pole. If they had stuck to the effects of the lowered albedo of both land and sea compared with ice, they would have been ok. But instead they bring in trees that they say will absorb the sun's energy and contribute to warming in the area. This article was the first that I have ever seen that ever seen that talked about the negative impact that trees have on the environment. Let alone that trees certainly mitigate local warming when compared to the open exposed rock that is the common terrain in the northern climes.
I have gone a little off track here. The only reason that you posted that link was to support your use of the plural when referring to the polar ice caps melting. And here I have gone and picked it apart on a bunch of other little details. To be fair, I couldn't find one thing that they said about the antarctic that wasn't true. But then again, they didn't refer to the antarctic even once. Go back and look, the antarctic is never mentioned.
The wikipedia link does not mention anything about the antarctic ice sheet shrinking or growing. |
