Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
"For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated" - what do you think about this?
This is a front page headline from todays The Independent - one of the UKs most prestigious newspapers known for its neutrality and adherence to facts.
The article states:
Both the NW and the NE passages have become ice free "for the first time in at least 125,000 years"
"The opening of the passages is only the greatest of a host of ominous signs this month of a gathering crisis in the Arctic."
"Professor Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the official US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), hailed the publication of the images as "a historic event", and said that it provided further evidence that the Arctic icecap may now have entered a "death spiral"."
In addition:
Auyuittuq National Park has seen "flooding from thawing glaciers. Auyuittuq means "land that never melts".
"Four weeks ago, a seven-year study at the University of Alberta reported that – besides shrinking in area – the thickness of the ice had dropped by half in just six years."
Please do not make any comments about what Al Gore or Palin or any other politician (especially US) has said.
The above is real, today, it has happened!
It is not a prediction.
It is not a theory.
It is not a computer model.
It is real and has already happened - the arctic is melting...
Finally, anyone who wants to says this is 'natural', 'usual', 'part of the pattern', etc. - please give verifiable sources for your statements (e.g. where are the computer models, predictions, etc that show that this much ice was going to happen without outside - e.g. human - interference). Any answers without such will be considered 'not an answer'.
Cool... Emerilesque seems to be spot on: "the denialists [don't] take an unbiased examination of the facts to reach their positions" cf. "The article statement is false" based on "We have only been measuring Arctic sea ice for 30 years" and yet he has also said "The ability to farm... is the basis for the Viking argument". http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar...
So, 30 years isn't enough in one case but 1,000 year circumstantial evidence is enough in another?
And evans... response is along the lines of - "sure, but cancer happens all the time, who gives a f*k if it happens to your mom?".
Still not willing to accept that the climate is changing.
Here.
Now.
DaveH - you seem to have given yourself away by failing to read/comprehend the question - do you do that with all information prtesented to you? It would explain things...
The article is not about whether one or the other can be open (this is well known, hence their names "passage") but that they are, for the first time, both open AT THE SAME TIME.
grovesmuk - you seem to have a lot of unconnected data - I can't quite follow the logic:
So, ice melting during a cold year is OK?
Again, the article is about simultaneous openings so whether Vikings or others have sailed the passages at any one time is irrelevant.
Just because THIS ice melting doesn't raise sea levels, it's OK? Nevermind what this may say about the general health of all arctic ice, right?
You talk of models - this is no model. It's a simple fact: For the first time in 125,000 years, the north pole is an island - no model!!
And sceptics accuse proponents of being "alarmist". So the IPCC (and others) try to avoid being alarmist, by being conservative and downplaying worst case scenarios.
When some scientists predict the north pole may be ice free soon, the sceptics jump up and down and scream "alarmist, alarmist"!
But when worst case starts to happen, you say "IPCC models didnt predict this happening yet" therefore everything is alright...
Help me here - if we say things are going to get bad, you don't want to listen but if we say things aren't going to get bad but they do, you don't want to listen?
Finally "Its a natural process" - we hear this all the time from sceptics:
So sceptics knew the ice cap would naturally melt back substantially but didn't want to tell anyone? Where are the computer models that show natural meltback of this amount at this rate?
And you're OK with all this, natural or not?
Anything else you are predicting we should know about like natural end-of-life-as-we-know-it?
Charles M - I gave you my source (and here's another that shows 2008 arctic ice area may end up being less than 2007 after all - http://global-warming.accuweather.com/).
Where is yours? You dismiss (deny) my factual sources yet, despite you saying the fact that this has happened before is "very well documented" you cannot provide any documentation.
Sorry, but without that, I will dismiss this as a simple falsehood.
As for "people who have never opened a history book" I can never understand how sceptics can dismiss entire university departments this way; do you seriously believe that lecturing professors in Germany are ignorant?
crash - see my comments re Dave H and learn to read the entire question before knee-jerking into denialism.
and the best for last - Ranger 473 - do you really believe that human history began in 1492? How egocentric!
And why do sceptics constantly fail to acknowledge that science can determine facts without direct observation?
To eric c and all others who want to simply deny these facts:
1 - The people saying this are the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) supported by NASA, the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, the University of Bremen, the University of Alberta and the European Space Agency.
2 - I have provided a link so you can verify these statements.
If you wish to call all these people stupid or ignorant or just plain wrong, I think it only fair that you justify your opinion with similar citations and links.
Without this, you are, indeed, being a "denier" and simply stating a personal opinion that, when put up against the professionals above, is quite obviously wrong.
14 Antworten
- Earl GreyLv 5vor 1 JahrzehntBeste Antwort
it is significant. But the denialists don't care. They didn't take an unbiased examination of the facts to reach their positions and they won't take one to change their positions either. The same people who think evolution is "just a theory" without even understanding it, are the same people who will fall for oil funded right wing thinktank talking points on global warming that are rejected by almost every real climate scientist who has studied the issue in detail.
- vor 1 Jahrzehnt
Firstly this hasnt been caused by global warming, firstly because its happened during a particuarly cold year (based on mean global temps from say Hadley), and secondly because unusually warm currents have been passing through the area. The reasons for this are little understood. Ice melt is triggered by warmer seas not air temp, and the sea takes hundreds of years to respond to any warming.
Some scientists also believe that the vikings used to navigate these passages in the past back when it was warmer than today during the Holocene Optimum.
And its hardly a crisis, the melting water doesnt raise sea levels, its merely left over ice from the ice age that has been slowly retreating for thousands of years. Its a natural process which we have no control over and it doesnt detrimentally effect us (yet) so why the fuss?
Its a case of reporting stories that scare us
See the NIPCC Final Report for information. They do not use model projections as they are meaningless. I build hydraulic and hydrogical models so I know a model can be manipulated to say anything, it doesnt make them right. If I showed you a model suggesting people wearing denim contributed to global warming would you believe me because the model said so? Besides, the IPCC models didnt predict this happening yet even with a doubling of co2. You could argue that shows the effect is worse or the models are meaningless, or its just a natural phenonomen.
If you support the AGW theory the onus in on you to provide evidence (models dont count) as the IPCC have not yet found proof of a link between man made co2 and the warming trend experianced over the last centuary. The evidence of co2 warming the climate isnt there either. Skpetics merely remind people that it is an un-proven theory and further research needs to be done. I dont suggest the theory is completely wrong, only it needs proving.
Finding graves under the permafrost in greenland is better evidence than a fudged model projection or 30 years of data.
If you look at sea ice in August 2008 with August 1998, you will see there appears to be more ice now than there was 10 years ago.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...
And its up compared to last year (which was particularly low):
- Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
This is what you can expect from people who have never opened a history book let alone studied it. There have been hundreds of ships that have traversed them both ways in the 30s and 40s especially. Viking and Inuit records make it clear they used the arctic to go both ways from Norway and Denmark to Greenland. It is only those who either never took history are failed it that would even pretend this is something new and special. During a major part of the MWP the Arctic Ocean was virtually ice free a large part of the year. I do not know who you get your information from but they really need to do better research before making such uneducated claims because the Arctic has been virtually ice free in summer during at least 5 warming periods in the last 10,000 years and twice in the last 2,000. This is very well documented.
- eric cLv 5vor 1 Jahrzehnt
We know from borehole temperature studies in Greenland (Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998) that temperatures in Greenland, and we can assume the Arctic, were considerably warmer in the past, for a way longer period of time than today. So I have to question the assertion that "Both the NW and the NE passages have become ice free "for the first time in at least 125,000 years"
- Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
- antarcticiceLv 7vor 1 Jahrzehnt
It's nice to see the usual attempt to spread mis-information in relation to the NW passage
DaveH answer leaves out a couple of small facts like the time it took these early trips the St Roch for instance it's second trip through in 1944 was considered much faster than its first, the second trip only took 28 months, hardly a sail straight through.
A question a few weeks ago made a similar attempt claiming Amundsen sailed through in 1906 but leaving out the fact it took him three years to get through. Attempts to get through the NW passage date back at least 2 hundred years in 1845 Franklin and his entire party were lost, trying.
The NW passage has reached the stage were it is possible to go straight through in a few days unlike previous passages were it has taken months, weeks or even years to get through previous attempts usually wintered over somewhere on the way or were accompanied by icebreakers which use huge amount of fuel and make it un-financial as a commercial shipping route.
- vor 1 Jahrzehnt
First time in history ??? Actually , We have only been reliably measuring Arctic sea ice for about 30 years . The article statement is false or at least , yet to be determined .
The point remains the same -- "first time in human history" is unknown , therefore, inaccurate . Downplaying the huge gap in data for comparisons to the past is not a good argument .
I fail to see what the Vikings have to do with this . Are you suggesting they did not farm and raise livestock on Greenland ? There is nothing circumstantial about that . It is simply overwhelming fact .
Also , a slight drop below median levels is hardly enough to predict the 'disappearance' of Arctic sea ice in ten years . Those predictions are foolish .
- richard bLv 6vor 1 Jahrzehnt
perhaps the article should state the arctic is ice free in know human history. before the last ice age, the planet was warmer than it is now. we know this from the geological record. and yes man was around 75,000 years ago, in fact the super volcano eruption that caused the last ice age, nearly wiped out man kind. the arctic has been ice free in the past, and it will be ice free again in the future regardless of what man does or does not do. global climate change is normal and natural. do not let anyone tell you other wise.
Quelle(n): - Anonymvor 1 Jahrzehnt
I'm not sure how you dismiss tangible evidence from around the world as "circumstantial" - there's no explanation for a single piece of such evidence other than that temps were warmer.
As for the Northwest passage, given that humans only began to try, in small wooden vessels, within the last 10,000 years, to navigate it, that's kind of a misleading quote you've got.
- Who Dat ?Lv 7vor 1 Jahrzehnt
its a typical alarmist lie. the northwest passage has been made at least a dozen times in the last 100 years, starting with Roald Amundsen by sailing ship in 1905 as anyone who made it through grade school knows.
the north east passage is a regular shipping route & has been for 400 years since 1648.
you need to spend a minute doing some research if you want to be taken seriously.
these ridiculous hysterical outburst's are getting annoying.
- DaveHLv 5vor 1 Jahrzehnt
Utterly ridiculous. (please see additional comments below under "EDIT")
The Northeast passage has been used as a shipping lane continuously since the 1930's http://www.answers.com/topic/northern-sea-route It's open every summer from about June to October. The Northwest passage has been open many times in recent recorded history.
Here are a few occasions the North Pole could have been circumnavigated.
1940 and 1944 St Roch traverses the Northwest Passage.
http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/international_poli...
1957 USS Storis traverses the Northwest Passage. http://www.eaglespeak.us/2006/12/sunday-ship-histo...
1977 Single handed transit of the Northwest Passage. http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/international_poli...
M.V Linblad carries tourists through the Northwest Passage: 1984 (and again in 1988) http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/travel/clips/1366...
2 guys sail through the Northwest Passage in a 20 foot catamaran: 1988 http://archives.cbc.ca/sports/exploits/dossiers/23...
2000 St Roch II repeats the 1940 trip made by St Roch http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/international_poli...
At least 110 vessels are understood to have sailed the Northwest Passage since 1940. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6999078.stm
EDIT and response.
To Adam C and Antarcticice.
ADAM C. You say... “DaveH - you seem to have given yourself away by failing to read/comprehend the question - do you do that with all information prtesented to you? It would explain things...
The article is not about whether one or the other can be open (this is well known, hence their names "passage") but that they are, for the first time, both open AT THE SAME TIME”
I read and comprehend very well thank you. Perhaps you misread or miscomprehended the part of my response that explained that the Northeast Passage is open EVERY summer. You might also like to study the geo-political history of the region regarding granting and denial of access.
There’s no ‘denialism’ here, you just make a statement that’s simply not true... "For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated". That is simply incorrect.
Antarcticice. You tell me ... “DaveH answer leaves out a couple of small facts like the time it took these early trips the St Roch for instance it's second trip through in 1944 was considered much faster than its first, the second trip only took 28 months”
28 months? Where are you getting your history from? Wikipedia? (Oh that's right you are!)
“In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days” http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
To you both I would point out that I have only quoted very recent history. Charles M is perfectly correct in saying that the Vikings circumnavigated the North Pole by returning ‘home’ westwards. What Grovesmuk tells you about arctic ocean currents is also very well documented.
I can't add links in support of their comments as I've reached the 10 link limit in this post; so I have to invite you to challenge their positions in new questions. I look forward to them.
