 |
The Green Picture: Arctic Ice Then, And Now |
23 Comments |
| By Michael d'Estries in Climate Change, Green Living | October 12, 2007 | ||
The image above shows the spread of Arctic ice in 1979 and today. Arctic ice is shown in magenta; thicker regions in darker shades. According to new data, scientific consensus underestimated the massive ice melt that is now occurring with levels happening today predicted to occur decades from now. Yikes.
via Daily Kos
Loading ...
truthilicious said,
Those 2 pictures look eerily similar aside from the “ice.” I’m not saying that global warming isn’t happening – but I am suggesting that this is a Photoshopped con.
michael said,
T,
Those images came from here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Matt Mayer said,
T-
Um, the point of the picture is to show you how much the ice has changed. Are you expecting to see the land look different somehow or something?
justin said,
YEAH…UM…DOES HEAT MAKE LAND DISAPPEAR? i MYSELF BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, BUT ACTUAL EARTH DOESN’T DISSIPATE DUE TO HEAT. POLAR CAPS MELT… WHICH ISN’T HAPPENING IN YOUR LITTLE DISPLAY.. IGNORANT GREENIES MAKE PEOPLE WHO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING MAKE ME SICK. gET ACTUAL PHOTOS.
Filip said,
He does make a good point. Especially when concerning that thin strip of white north of Russia/Karelia area. Albeit I know little about the artic or even what that thin strip is, but you’d think that if the overall change in
garrett said,
Look,
Global warming might be happening, it might not. If it is happening it might not be caused by man. An actual debate would be useful. Despite what some nobel prize winners say about man made global warming being the consensus from climate scientists, consensus is by definition not science. There was a consensus that the world was flat, consensus that there were no microorganisms that caused infection, and consensus that the sun orbited the earth for example.
So, it would be nice if next to the picture the someone would point out that Antartic ice has been GROWING in that time period. Here’s a link : http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
Enjoy
garrett said,
It’s Antarctic, sorry for the typo.
Tyler said,
I think what truthilicious is saying is that outside of the planet, the space around earth looks EXACTLY the same. Look closer, and pixel by pixel the planet looks the same too.
Tyler said,
Hmmmm, interesting…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19790905.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20070905.jpg
mercurial.ohearn said,
i don’t suppose any of the “hmmm, this is photoshopped” crowd has considered that these are not actual photographs of the earth, as seen from space?
of course “pixel for pixel” the planet looks the same. where are the clouds? is there any satellite that orbits far enough away from the earth that it could take such a picture? does ice really look magenta from space?
hello, people, these are computer-generated models of mathematical data, not photographs.
jesus.
Kevin said,
Notice that Iceland hasn’t changed at all.
garrett said,
OK- I’m chiming in b/c there’s another person who blogged on here that happens to have my name “Garrett”…
This person appears to be trying to use one report (from 2002, I might add) to dispute the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that:
(A.) The earth is warming, and
(B.) The main cause of the warming is due to man’s influence.
Just so you know, this is not really a controversial discussion at this point. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC – the largest group of scientists that’s ever been convened), was put together to simply make this clear to everyone that it *IS* a real problem.
…They were also the co-winners of the Nobel Prize for Peace this week…
http://www.IPCC.ch
garrett said,
Hey Garrett!
Great name.
And as for my previous post, I think I was trying to point out a couple of things:
The pictures show LOTS of ice disappearing from the Arctic over a 25 year period. I posted a link to a story saying that during this same time the ice at the Antarctic has gotten significantly thicker.
Second, I was trying to point out that consensus is not science. Scientists has consensus that the earth was flat at one point. That did not make it so. Scientists has consensus that washing your hands before performing surgery was useless.
Personally I think it is folly to think that the activities of man can make the earth hot or cold, and even if we did that it is a bad thing. Long before man industrialized, the earth got hot and cold all on it’s own lots and lots of times over millions of years. We all accept that those periods of hot and cold a)happened and b)were natural. Now, a growing consensus of scientists that we were about tho have another ice age in the 1970’s new we have a consensus about a global warming event. And of course this even could not have happened by nature. All of the other heating and cooling periods did, but not this one.
Look, I am persuadable (if that is even a word). But, if melting ice is supposed to lead to rising sea levels, home come from 05 SEP 1979 to 05 SEP 2007 lower manhattan isn’t under water? Why haven’t all of the beach front development from Key West to Boston been submerged? Where did that water go?
Thanks,
Garrett, but not that other garrett.
Gideon said,
Re: the notion that everyone used to think the earth was flat…
This is such a straw man. Stop trying to avoid the real issues at hand with false examples.
From “flat earth” on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Around 300BC Aristotle showed that the earth was round. Around 240BC the circumference was measured (pretty accurately). Those who literally believed heaven was up and hell was down couldn’t really live with this so “the church” forced scientists to agree with them (see Galleleo et al). Many historians agree that there were actually people that in medieval Europe who believed the earth was flat.
Actually, that sounds eerily similar to the Global Warming “debate”. You’ve got scientists that come up with some interesting observations. They take some time to refine their hypotheses, using every known objective method to prove their point. Meanwhile you’ve got some die hards that keep trying to make a debate over observable fact.
Now we’ve got another group of scientists chiming in to say “hey, not only all that other evidence, but also the NORTHERN ice caps are melting,” and the best people can do is say it was photoshoped? If you question the evidence, then read the report, talk to some real climatoligists, and then give us your informed and objective opinions please.
Re: 1970’s Ice Age
Another Straw Man! See Wiki’s “Global Cooling” article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
There was a trend noted but not worried about by scientists (who it turned out were worried about global warming by 1968!). Unfortunately the press got ahold of it and went wild (as they do). Scientists don’t usually sound alarms unless they are more than sure. That’s why the scientific consensus IS relevant and IS scary.
Folks, don’t fall for the straw men and red herrings. Inform yourselves with reliable sorces, and look up anything that sounds fishy.
Swami said,
You can tell it’s Photoshopped, because it shows the ice as purple, and ice isn’t purple!1ONEHUNDREDANDELEVEN!
Hurrrr!
Those new shipping routes that are opening up that Canada is claiming? The island the Norway and Canada both claim now that it’s ice is gone? They don’t exist, they were Photoshopped! Tell that to the Canadian government.
garrett said,
Gideon,
“Folks, don’t fall for the straw men and red herrings. Inform yourselves with reliable sorces, and look up anything that sounds fishy.”
I agree. Thus, I find things like this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
Where it says, “ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize ‘ridiculous’ and the product of ‘people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works’.
Thanks,
Garrett (the new temporary one)
Gideon said,
OK, so on the one hand we have a 78 year old professor interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald giving his hypothesis of the global warming that he admits is happening (his claim: there’s no way man did it),
just for fun, why don’t we find out who this guy is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
a choice exerpt: “there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work’s shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray’s pronouncements on climate change and its causes.”
…and on the other we have a University Polar Research group’s scientific findings that the northern ice cap is melting a lot faster than we thought, and of course these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
and Al Gore.
Did you see where it said, “With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate”?
Let’s review:
flat earth = bad example based on false assumptions
1970’s cooling = see flat earth
Dr. Grey = “fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate” (almost sounds like ’see flat earth’)
So, let’s stick to solid citations or peer reviewed journals, and that way we’ll all be on the same page.
cinder said,
One thing I have noticed is that all of you are taking the “Theories” of scientist. Just because someone believes something is happening it doesn’t mean it’s true.
Once again the disclaimer that I don’t believe one way or another at this point, but we need to remember that these guys are smart, but are still guessing.
cinder said,
also, I did not know that the land bridge between Asia and North America existed in 1979.
cinder said,
oops my bad not land bridge but ice bridge
Gideon said,
Cinder, don’t forget that gravity, plate techtonics and general reletivity are also theories.
A guess is a hypothesis.
A guess well tested, with positive results, that is repeatable, and has been tested, studied, and approved by peers is a theory.
Global warming is a theory. Historically large amounts of ice melting off the north pole is a measured fact. Global warming being the cause of this melting is a hypothesis.
From over 900 peer review articles dealing with global warming and published beween 1994 and 2004, none found evidence against the theory. When people tell you that there are scientists that don’t agree, find out which “scientists”, what exactly they are saying (it’s to easy to interpret open objectivism as antipathy towards a concept), and if they’ve done research to support any hard claims they make. Do this and you’ll find a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS (and it ain’t one against global warming).
PS: anybody seen Garret (the new temporary one) around lately?
my sex room said,
http://industrialbrushes.com/catalog/images/p/3/my-sex-room.html my sex room http://industrialbrushes.com/catalog/images/p/3/my-sex-site.html my sex site http://industrialbrushes.com/catalog/images/p/3/my-sex-slave.html my sex slave http://industrialbrushes.com/catalog/images/p/3/my-sex-story.html my sex story
Chris said,
you people are all retarded. these photos are a faithful representation of whats really happening in the world lol and you morons get upset because NASA didnt fly to space and snap a polaroid for you. the point is the caps are melting. habitats are being taken away and animals are dying as a result. your governments can make change, but dilweeds like bush decided not to do anything about it because he didnt want the responsibility of making companies go green. instead of debating whether or not global warming is happening or not, maybe you should be getting involved in community work and being a socially responsible person. Do you understand what i mean or was Bush also a faithful representation?