Arctic is getting too warm for seals and fish

[Sunny and Warm]

http://news.google.c...for+seals&hl=en

Seems we've been down this road before with anecdotal evidence it would appear. Mind you, this was in 1922, and before the supposed death spiral caused by late 20th century AGW. Other recent papers explain that the Arctic ice was as much as 50% less than today between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago. That's 3,000 years of less ice without any humans getting in the way. And we really believe we influence the planet as much as we think?? I think not.

[Sunny and Warm]

Interesting that the usual "Oh my God, the ice is melting" crowd has spent the last four hours posting in the Arctic thread about the doom of Arctic ice forevah instead of commenting in this thread about how this very subject was discussed in 1922. Looks like all this stuff is just a part of a regular cycle to me, but then again I'm not an alarmist.

[WeatherRusty]

Interesting that the usual "Oh my God, the ice is melting" crowd has spent the last four hours posting in the Arctic thread about the doom of Arctic ice forevah instead of commenting in this thread about how this very subject was discussed in 1922. Looks like all this stuff is just a part of a regular cycle to me, but then again I'm not an alarmist.

But you are a denier of science.

[Sunny and Warm]

But you are a denier of science.

No, I study human psychology.

[WeatherRusty]

No, I study human psychology.

So with little relevant background, you pick and choose which sciences you wish to accept as credible? I understand your reluctance to embrace AGW, a great deal of information is out there specifically designed to confuse the public. Mitigation strategies may conflict with your ideology. The idea that mankind's activities could negatively impact on the environment may seem preposterous, especially when speaking of what seems such a diluted, otherwise innocuous natural component of Earth's atmosphere.

I understand that part of human nature is to elevate ourselves to a greater level of importance than what is actually the case. I understand the human propensity for exaggeration, deception and the need for dominance etc.

I also understand fairly well the underlying scientific basis for AGW and believe it to be very well grounded in the fundamentals of mainstream science. Therefor I expect that the general conclusions of that science are correct and not some hoax, or greatly flawed, poorly conducted science. There is plenty of room for further study and understanding of the details, but the foundation is clear. Human activities are treating the atmosphere like a cesspool for our waist products, just as we have done with our water resources and our land.

Ever more CO2 dumped into the atmosphere will cause the surface temperature to rise as dictated by basic physics. The rate and degree of final warming produced is a function of climate sensitivity to the energy imbalance thus created. Study of past climate change, volcanic eruptions and computer modeling suggest a best estimate for that sensitivity to be something in the general range of 2C - 4.5C for each doubling of CO2, or about 0.75C per watt of energy imbalance.

[Sundog]

You are in denial if you think we as humans don't significantly affect the Earth with our cumulative activities.

[Sunny and Warm]

You are in denial if you think we as humans don't significantly affect the Earth with our cumulative activities.

sounds like an emotional response instead of a scientific one to me. Care to attempt a proof of such a broad statement. It's easy to say what you wrote, but the truth may be a different story. Pollution I might buy. Changing ecosystems I might buy? Destroying habitats I might buy. Causing runaway AGW, not so much.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Interesting that the usual "Oh my God, the ice is melting" crowd has spent the last four hours posting in the Arctic thread about the doom of Arctic ice forevah instead of commenting in this thread about how this very subject was discussed in 1922. Looks like all this stuff is just a part of a regular cycle to me, but then again I'm not an alarmist.

Still waiting for you to respond in that thread?

And you come to this conclusion with zero evidence and an article written in Scientific stone ages compared to now in a Florida NewsPaper. ok.

[WeatherRusty]

sounds like an emotional response instead of a scientific one to me. Care to attempt a proof of such a broad statement. It's easy to say what you wrote, but the truth may be a different story. Pollution I might buy. Changing ecosystems I might buy? Destroying habitats I might buy. Causing runaway AGW, not so much.

You use anecdotal evidence which claims we have been down this road before. True, climate was about as warm 8,000 yrs ago as to day, but science can tell us why it got no warmer than that. We are quite confident the current instance of global warming is set to continue on upward for reasons that did not exist 8,000 yrs ago. Have you studied the scientific basis for AGW at all? If you had, you would realize there is not any mention of "runaway AGW", but rather a climate system which will seek a repositioned point of equilibrium.

[OHSnow]

Moreover, even if the article is correct, that's a bad thing not a good thing. It's MUCH warmer in the arctic today than 1922. If it was getting too hot for the wildlife in 1922, it must be even worse today.

[Sunny and Warm]

Still waiting for you to respond in that thread?

And you come to this conclusion with zero evidence and an article written in Scientific stone ages compared to now in a Florida NewsPaper. ok.

I've already told you that your thoughts are not worth my time. You write silly comments and conjecture that honestly doesn't rise to a level that requires my time for response. That's not being necessarily mean spirited, it's just how I feel about your posts. So, please don't expect any responses until I feel you have something to offer beyond jibberish.

[cheetah440]

No, I study human psychology.

The perfect field of study for AGW, because science surely isn't.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I've already told you that your thoughts are not worth my time. You write silly comments and conjecture that honestly doesn't rise to a level that requires my time for response. That's not being necessarily mean spirited, it's just how I feel about your posts. So, please don't expect any responses until I feel you have something to offer beyond jibberish.

You can say whatever you want.

Doesn't change the fact that you offer no data to back your position because there is none.

You use me as your rational to avoid your previous claims and answer my questions based on those claims. That is up to you. You have the right to hold a position with zero evidence which is as credible as claiming pink elephants are in the room.

[SoCoWx]

You know being an activist for green energy and sustainable development, youd think that as much as these people portray that they care about the environment, they'd get up and do something about it instead of sitting on the computer arguing about it. The only way to solve problems is to raise awareness and DO something about it...not sit on your butt and fight others because they dont believe what you believe.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You know being an activist for green energy and sustainable development, youd think that as much as these people portray that they care about the environment, they'd get up and do something about it instead of sitting on the computer arguing about it. The only way to solve problems is to raise awareness and DO something about it...not sit on your butt and fight others because they dont believe what you believe.

Your making major assumptions about us.

[SoCoWx]

Your making major assumptions about us.

Maybe, but I'm also stating what is clear. Many of you spend a lot of time getting wrapped up in petty arguments when you could be doing forecasting here or in other threads OR better, recycling, attending environmental seminars, starting green initiatives in your community, etc. Being an activist, I know that things will never get better if this bickering continues. If you want change, you must be the change you want to see in others. You must work with people, not against them. Getting upset over their beliefs is trifle. Brush it off and move on. Youve got a world to save, correct?

[BeastFromTheEast]

Maybe, but I'm also stating what is clear. Many of you spend a lot of time getting wrapped up in petty arguments when you could be doing forecasting here or in other threads OR better, recycling, attending environmental seminars, starting green initiatives in your community, etc. Being an activist, I know that things will never get better if this bickering continues. If you want change, you must be the change you want to see in others. You must work with people, not against them. Getting upset over their beliefs is trifle. Brush it off and move on. Youve got a world to save, correct?

Finally some sanity in the climate change forum!

[Clifford]

81°N is about the summer sea ice extent for the European side of the Arctic. At least now. Reports have been that it has been a bit greater in the past. The article is a November article, but it could be referring to September data.

From the article:

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers.

[...]

Very few seals and no white fish are being found in the eastern Arctic, while vast schools of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds

Ever wonder....

During the time that hunters started driving species to extinction including the Great Auk & the Passenger Pigeon & nearly drove some whale species to extinction.

Is it a surprise that seals were becoming less abundant. And, perhaps seal food was becoming more abundant?

[Sundog]

sounds like an emotional response instead of a scientific one to me. Care to attempt a proof of such a broad statement. It's easy to say what you wrote, but the truth may be a different story. Pollution I might buy. Changing ecosystems I might buy? Destroying habitats I might buy. Causing runaway AGW, not so much.

You are proving my case with your own post. You freely admit that we pollute the planet, destroy habitats and change ecosystems (if you hadn't admitted these facts I would seriously question your intelligence and/or education level.)

[Sunny and Warm]

You are proving my case with your own post. You freely admit that we pollute the planet, destroy habitats and change ecosystems (if you hadn't admitted these facts I would seriously question your intelligence and/or education level.)

I believe in protecting the environment as much as you do for future generations, and efforts to clean up waterways in the USA has been a big success. Some govts destroy habitats via wanton development without regard to other life forms. I disagree with development without being in harmony with the ecosystem, as the consequences to destroying one species may lead to the destruction of other species that rely on that food chain. However, I believe in those things because it has been proven to me that these impacts have occurred and require mitigation. AGW science falls woefully short on that score, and I smell too many politicians and money in the room for my taste. Nothing good has ever happened in science when those corrupting influences are present, so until I see that lessening, I will tend to cast a dubious eye on the underlying science. It certainly doesn't help that some of the scientists doing the research on AGW are nefarious fellows as well.

[PhillipS]

I've already told you that your thoughts are not worth my time. You write silly comments and conjecture that honestly doesn't rise to a level that requires my time for response. That's not being necessarily mean spirited, it's just how I feel about your posts. So, please don't expect any responses until I feel you have something to offer beyond jibberish.

S&W - As a new member of this forum who's been reading various threads I must say that Friv21 is a much more credible commenter than you. Where you post insults and opinion, he posts data and links. The value of any technical discussion is its signal to noise ratio - i.e. the amount of information versus the worthless chaff of unfounded assertions. Friv21 is provides data, and links to additional sources, to support his assertions. That the sort of posts many of us come here for. You, on the other hand, consistently fail to back up your assertions with any relevant data and instead throw out worthless snarky post after post. How big must your ego be to think that your opinion is important to anyone but yourself and your clique of fellow 'skeptics'? You're just noise.

No doubt you and or your cronies will have some seething retort to this post, but at the end of the day all of your noise is no more significant than my dog barking at squirrels. We are facing serious global problems and you have chosen to bark from the fringes instead of contributing to possible solutions.

[Sunny and Warm]

S&W - As a new member of this forum who's been reading various threads I must say that Friv21 is a much more credible commenter than you. Where you post insults and opinion, he posts data and links. The value of any technical discussion is its signal to noise ratio - i.e. the amount of information versus the worthless chaff of unfounded assertions. Friv21 is provides data, and links to additional sources, to support his assertions. That the sort of posts many of us come here for. You, on the other hand, consistently fail to back up your assertions with any relevant data and instead throw out worthless snarky post after post. How big must your ego be to think that your opinion is important to anyone but yourself and your clique of fellow 'skeptics'? You're just noise.

No doubt you and or your cronies will have some seething retort to this post, but at the end of the day all of your noise is no more significant than my dog barking at squirrels. We are facing serious global problems and you have chosen to bark from the fringes instead of contributing to possible solutions.

you joined just to post this?? I did not post an insult to Friv. I specifically told him that I did not believe his commentary (no matter how great you think it is) rose to a level that required my attention. That is a completely honest assessment by me of my feelings toward his posts, and more truthful than much of what passes on this forum. What is that to you is my question? He can defend himself or ignore me as well. I don't care. I will continue to refrain from commenting on his posts. The rest of your rant is again not worth my time.

[stellarfun]

We have been down this path long ago in the old EUSWx forum.

The original article (no longer in copyright):

Arctic Ocean Getting

Warm; Seals Vanish

And Icebergs Melt*

(By the Associated Press)

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway .

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3.100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are being found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

The 'problem' with those observations is Svalbard is around 80N, and in the waters around Svalbard are the West and east Spitzbergen currents which bring relatively warm 5-6C water into the Arctic. All you would need to get to the conditions described is for a warmer or more northerly reach of the Gulf Stream.

[SoCoWx]

S&W - As a new member of this forum who's been reading various threads I must say that Friv21 is a much more credible commenter than you. Where you post insults and opinion, he posts data and links. The value of any technical discussion is its signal to noise ratio - i.e. the amount of information versus the worthless chaff of unfounded assertions. Friv21 is provides data, and links to additional sources, to support his assertions. That the sort of posts many of us come here for. You, on the other hand, consistently fail to back up your assertions with any relevant data and instead throw out worthless snarky post after post. How big must your ego be to think that your opinion is important to anyone but yourself and your clique of fellow 'skeptics'? You're just noise.

No doubt you and or your cronies will have some seething retort to this post, but at the end of the day all of your noise is no more significant than my dog barking at squirrels. We are facing serious global problems and you have chosen to bark from the fringes instead of contributing to possible solutions.

The funny part is that the elitist air that you have about you won't solve anything. Be mature and drop it instead of ripping someone else. If you want real change you will have to drop the attitude and move on with life. As I said, working against people solves nothing. And it will be this trifle elitist complex that will cause the green movement to fail and the environment to crumble. You can work with people and save the world, or fight them and watch it die. Your choice...

[The_Global_Warmer]

We have been down this path long ago in the old EUSWx forum.

The original article (no longer in copyright):

The 'problem' with those observations is Svalbard is around 80N, and in the waters around Svalbard are the West and east Spitzbergen currents which bring relatively warm 5-6C water into the Arctic. All you would need to get to the conditions described is for a warmer or more northerly reach of the Gulf Stream.

7-8C water is nearly reaching 80N. And is butted up against the ice pack.

SSTs continue to warm each year to record highs now where ice is gone.

[Sunny and Warm]

The funny part is that the elitist air that you have about you won't solve anything. Be mature and drop it instead of ripping someone else. If you want real change you will have to drop the attitude and move on with life. As I said, working against people solves nothing. And it will be this trifle elitist complex that will cause the green movement to fail and the environment to crumble. You can work with people and save the world, or fight them and watch it die. Your choice...

I'm not sure the green strategy of hitching its wagon so closely with AGW is a good thing. Too many eggs in one basket sort of thing. I preferred when the green agenda had five important themes on it like clean water, acid rain, reforestation, rainforests, etc, etc. A setback in one area didn't jeopardize all of the themes at once. That to me is a flawed strategy, and has subjugated important topics to the back burner in favor of AGW. Additionally, all the money flowing into AGW is sapping the funding for other important initiatives.

I support many, if not most, environmental issues, but not AGW to the extreme being presented. Can one be a supporter of one and not the other?? I think so.

[SoCoWx]

I'm not sure the green strategy of hitching its wagon so closely with AGW is a good thing. Too many eggs in one basket sort of thing. I preferred when the green agenda had five important themes on it like clean water, acid rain, reforestation, rainforests, etc, etc. A setback in one area didn't jeopardize all of the themes at once. That to me is a flawed strategy, and has subjugated important topics to the back burner in favor of AGW. Additionally, all the money flowing into AGW is sapping the funding for other important initiatives.

I support many, if not most, environmental issues, but not AGW to the extreme being presented. Can one be a supporter of one and not the other?? I think so.

I didnt say you couldn't. I for one love the Earth and the beautiful creations on it with all my heart...but I honestly do not feel that the Earth is dying due to anthropogenic global warming.

My point was that the elitist attitude that Philip exhibited isn't going to solve anything. He should be mature and move on.

[Sunny and Warm]

I didnt say you couldn't. I for one love the Earth and the beautiful creations on it with all my heart...but I honestly do not feel that the Earth is dying due to anthropogenic global warming.

My point was that the elitist attitude that Philip exhibited isn't going to solve anything. He should be mature and move on.

I wasn't referring to you specifically on my question. It was really rhetorical in nature. I feel accused of not caring about the environment just because I do not believe in AGW. I like your posts btw and agree completely with your second sentence. I moved to Hilton Head for that very reason.

[salbers]

I believe in protecting the environment as much as you do for future generations, and efforts to clean up waterways in the USA has been a big success. Some govts destroy habitats via wanton development without regard to other life forms. I disagree with development without being in harmony with the ecosystem, as the consequences to destroying one species may lead to the destruction of other species that rely on that food chain. However, I believe in those things because it has been proven to me that these impacts have occurred and require mitigation. AGW science falls woefully short on that score, and I smell too many politicians and money in the room for my taste. Nothing good has ever happened in science when those corrupting influences are present, so until I see that lessening, I will tend to cast a dubious eye on the underlying science. It certainly doesn't help that some of the scientists doing the research on AGW are nefarious fellows as well.

This is as good a time as any to remind of the difficulty of reversing the CO2 buildup and warming as they accumulate.