Arctic permafrost is melting faster t...

Arctic permafrost is melting faster than predicted

There are 147 comments on the New Scientist story from Nov 29, 2012, titled Arctic permafrost is melting faster than predicted. In it, New Scientist reports that:

We may be closer to a major climate tipping point than we knew. Earth's permafrost - frozen soil that covers nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere and traps vast amounts of carbon - may be melting faster than thought and releasing more potent greenhouse gasses.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#23 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. The right wing whips up their base to think into a manic freezy to BELIEVE this is just about those evil liberals wanting to increase their taxes...
Of course it helps when the liberals yell about wanting to raise taxes to as they call it "make the rich pay thier fair share".

The funny thing isevery time the rich hear that they just move thier money out of the reach of government and the middle class ends up stuck with the bill.
litesong

Everett, WA

#24 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Actually, measurements of the area covered by the Arctic ice goes back far longer than the 1950's For example, Titantic collision was blamed on ignoring ice reports received. Of course the various explorers, seal and polar bear hunters, and a host of others who spent time in the Arctic also recorded the position of the edge of the ice. Many countries also sent warships to record position of the ice. Russia has records going back to the times of the Czars detailing Arctic ice coverage on a daily basis. After all, they wanted to exploit the riches of the area such as gold.
toxic topix AGW deniers have equated sporadic reports such as 'tiny-minded anne' mentions with the extremely more comprehensive reports of nuclear submarines under the Arctic Ice Caps & satellite tracking. The duty of toxic topix AGW deniers is to look for an trace & bits of info that can negate present day AGW science.

Of course, reports from the less technological past can't compare with present day reports. Science is science & is advancing.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#25 Feb 12, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
toxic topix AGW deniers have equated sporadic reports such as 'tiny-minded anne' mentions with the extremely more comprehensive reports of nuclear submarines under the Arctic Ice Caps & satellite tracking. The duty of toxic topix AGW deniers is to look for an trace & bits of info that can negate present day AGW science.
Of course, reports from the less technological past can't compare with present day reports. Science is science & is advancing.
Except AGW has been disproven so there is no more AGW science. Yes, nuclear submarines have allowed man to explore under the ice but the simple fact is that tracking the location of the edge of the ice has had economic and military implications for centuries now. During the days of the Titantic the cruise liner was the fastest way to travel between Europe and North AMerica. The faster the ship the more it could charge for passage and the less food was needed for the passengers. The most northen ports were only accessable during the periods where they and the waters around them were free of ice. Which means goods could not be delivered and such items as minerals and hides could not be transported to market until then. Think about all those sea cub coats that you use to protest against. Even setting up camp for that type of cruel operation means that they would want to know where the edge of the sea ice was.

If there is one thing alarmist seem to have the most problems with, it is history.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#26 Feb 12, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
toxic topix AGW deniers have equated sporadic reports such as 'tiny-minded anne' mentions with the extremely more comprehensive reports of nuclear submarines under the Arctic Ice Caps & satellite tracking. The duty of toxic topix AGW deniers is to look for an trace & bits of info that can negate present day AGW science.
Of course, reports from the less technological past can't compare with present day reports. Science is science & is advancing.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
lili11

Richmond Hill, Canada

#27 Feb 12, 2013
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone can answer some questions for me on global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. So here are the questions:

1.when was the start of global warmig due to human activities

2.Is global warming over exagerated(is it really not as bad as everyone is sayig)

3.what has the goverment done to help stop global warming

4.What points of view do you have on global warming

5.Is global warming a top prority for the goverment and the world

Thankyou for your time and help.
SpaceBlues

United States

#28 Feb 12, 2013
lili11 wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone can answer some questions for me on global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. So here are the questions:
1.when was the start of global warmig due to human activities
2.Is global warming over exagerated(is it really not as bad as everyone is sayig)
3.what has the goverment done to help stop global warming
4.What points of view do you have on global warming
5.Is global warming a top prority for the goverment and the world
Thankyou for your time and help.
Again, feel free to access science sites for research. You can start at Wikipedia, obviously or here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq....

Since: Aug 08

Everett, WA

#29 Feb 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Again, feel free to access science sites for research. You can start at Wikipedia, obviously or here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq....
Try NewScientist.com , too.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#30 Feb 12, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Try NewScientist.com , too.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31 Feb 12, 2013
lili11 wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone can answer some questions for me on global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. So here are the questions:
1.when was the start of global warmig due to human activities
2.Is global warming over exagerated(is it really not as bad as everyone is sayig)
3.what has the goverment done to help stop global warming
4.What points of view do you have on global warming
5.Is global warming a top prority for the goverment and the world
Thankyou for your time and help.
You just recieved a spam from the spaced out spacedoutblues!!! Quick run a virus cleaner or the scientific science fiction that spacedoutblues post invades your hard drive.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#32 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, measurements of the area covered by the Arctic ice goes back far longer than the 1950's For example, Titantic collision was blamed on ignoring ice reports received. Of course the various explorers, seal and polar bear hunters, and a host of others who spent time in the Arctic also recorded the position of the edge of the ice. Many countries also sent warships to record position of the ice. Russia has records going back to the times of the Czars detailing Arctic ice coverage on a daily basis. After all, they wanted to exploit the riches of the area such as gold.
Er, did you miss your post did not rebut what I said.

The Titanic collision was in 1912. I said the ice in the Arctic is now at 50% what it was 50 years ago.

h-e-l-l-o???

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33 Feb 12, 2013
Evidence?

Here is NASA on
Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

• Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#34 Feb 12, 2013
Here is Scientific American:

The Physical Science behind Climate Change

--Why are climatologists so highly confident that human activities are dangerously warming Earth?

<<the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

AND,

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#35 Feb 12, 2013
Here is Britain's Royal Society:

http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change...

It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure - global temperature - the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.

The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations.
==========

All the world renown science organizations in the US have similar statements. Here is the AAAS.

American Association of Science (AAAS)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years.

The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.

As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occur Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_c...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#36 Feb 12, 2013
**Organizations that say AGW is a FACT**
* National Academy of Sciences, United States [and NAS of every country]
* National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
* National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* National Science Foundation (NSF)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* American Medical Association (AMA)
* Smithsonian Institution
* International Arctic Science Committee
* Arctic Council
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* American Physical Society (APS)
* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
* Royal Meteorological Society, UK
* British Antarctic Survey
* European Science Foundation
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Académie des Sciences, France
* Institute of Biology, UK
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* U.S. Agency for International Development
* United States Department of Agriculture
* National Institute of Standards and Technology
* United States Department of Defense
* United States Department of Energy
* National Institutes of Health
* United States Department of State
* United States Department of Transportation
* University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
* African Academy of Sciences
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences
and the Arts
* Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
* Cameroon Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society of Canada
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
of Germany
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
* Indian National Science Academy
* Science Council of Japan
* Kenya National Academy of Sciences
* Madagascar's National Academy of Arts,
* Letters and Sciences
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
* Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society of New Zealand
* Polish Academy of Sciences
* Russian Academy of Sciences
*l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques
du Sénégal
* Academy of Science of South Africa
* Sudan Academy of Sciences
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Tanzania Academy of Sciences
* Turkish Academy of Sciences
* Uganda National Academy of Sciences
* Zambia Academy of Sciences
* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Association for the Advancement
of Science
* American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American College of Preventive Medicine
* American Geophysical Union
* American Public Health Association
* American Quaternary Association
* American Institute of Biological Sciences
* American Society of Agronomy
* American Society for Microbiology
* American Society of Plant Biologists
* American Statistical Association
* Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
* Botanical Society of America
* Crop Science Society of America
* Ecological Society of America
* Federation of American Scientists
* Geological Society of America
* National Association of Geoscience Teachers
* Natural Science Collections Alliance
* Organization of Biological Field Stations
* Society of American Foresters
* Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
* Society of Systematic Biologists
* Soil Science Society of America
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Medical Association
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Engineers Australia
* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
* Geological Society of Australia
* International Association for Great Lakes Research
* International Union for Quaternary Research
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#37 Feb 12, 2013
**Organizations that say AGW is a FRAUD**
[None which are science based organizations].
* American Petroleum Institute
* US Chamber of Commerce
* National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
* Western States Petroleum Association
* National Association of Manufacturers
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Industrial Minerals Association
* National Cattlemen's Beef Association
* Great Northern Project Development
* Rosebud Mining
* Alpha Natural Resources
* Southeastern Legal Foundation
* Georgia Agribusiness Council
* Georgia Motor Trucking Association
* Corn Refiners Association
* National Association of Home Builders
* National Oilseed Processors Association

and of course all the oil, gas, coal, and mining companies.
lili11

Richmond Hill, Canada

#38 Feb 12, 2013
Thank you so much for all your help.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#39 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
**Organizations that say AGW is a FRAUD**
[None which are science based organizations].
* American Petroleum Institute
* US Chamber of Commerce
* National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
* Western States Petroleum Association
* National Association of Manufacturers
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Industrial Minerals Association
* National Cattlemen's Beef Association
* Great Northern Project Development
* Rosebud Mining
* Alpha Natural Resources
* Southeastern Legal Foundation
* Georgia Agribusiness Council
* Georgia Motor Trucking Association
* Corn Refiners Association
* National Association of Home Builders
* National Oilseed Processors Association
and of course all the oil, gas, coal, and mining companies.
More BS. from the COMMANDER TROLL.
mc

Springfield, NJ

#40 Feb 13, 2013
Do your part and make your home use less energy! Check out greenenergyefficientproducts.com for many cool gadgets that save energy and save money!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#41 Feb 13, 2013
Are you trying to boggle the wasted mind of wallop10 AKA walloped again and again that gets walloped again and again?
SpaceBlues

United States

#42 Feb 13, 2013
lili11 wrote:
Thank you so much for all your help.
np.

Hope you stay in the forum.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump pulls US from global warming accord, to a... (Jun '17) 4 hr Trump is a joke 186
News Norfolk Southern Takes Responsibility For Fuel ... Mon Get out of my pocket 1
News Fact check: Trump's claims over airline safety,... Jan 9 Dee Dee Dee 18
News For your health: Healthy steps to fight global ... Jan 8 Climate Change Is... 1
News Scientists shocked by huge discovery deep under... Jan 8 The Book Of Revel... 1
News Global warming films flop at box office in 2017 Jan 1 Poster Child for ... 1
News Global warming: Fake news from the start Jan 1 Poster Child for ... 1
More from around the web