During scientific debates, the floe breaks up
By Denis Delbecq • September 5th, 2008 in 14:38 · Category: Actuality
The rise of the oceans is a reality. From there to envisage the largeness of phenomenon, science remains still very imperfect. Until now, the consensus of the scientists made responsible by the UNO for making the state of knowledge on climate, within GIEC (1) was made on a fork from 18 cm to 59 cm of increase before 2100. But recent many studies envisage an increase which could exceed two metres. What would cause the swallowing up of more sprawling lands and multiply the number of displaced persons.
This week, several contradictory signals came to complicate deal a bit. Today, in Science, researchers of the American University of Boulder (Colorado) move forward an including fork enter 0,8m and 2m, thinking that he and very unlikely that the increase in the oceans could be more important. The researchers tried to determine which quantity of water of cast iron of the skull caps of Greenland and of Antarctic would be necessary so that the level of seas goes up of two metres, also by taking into account the increase linked to the increase of the temperature of the water, which causes a widening of the liquid. Then, the American researchers compared this quantity of water to the rhythm of disappearance of these glacial skull caps. They conclude from it that, in current pace, the increase in the level of the oceans should not exceed two metres.
However, the team of Boulder will perhaps have to do again its calculations. Because last Sunday, in Nature Geoscience, another American team, of the University of Wisconsin, showed that the glacial skull caps can melt much more quickly than envisaged. While they consider that the disappearance of a skull cap several kilometres thick becomes on the scale of millenniums, Anders Carlson and his colleagues show that the carrot slaps Laurentides, which covered the most part of North America twenty thousand years ago knew two periods of breaking up of only the five centuries and of the eight centuries, 9000 years and 7600 years ago. The first epoch would have made take up the 1,3-metre oceans by century, and the 0,7-metre second by century Rest to be known now if this type of event perhaps generalised in a region as that of Greenland, from which physiognomy and environment very differ. Carlson thinks that yes, unlike two colleagues who, in a comment published in the same number of Nature Geoscience, remind that Greenland resisted last déglaciation while the skull cap of Laurentides disappeared …
Until debate is settled, the ice of the Arctic continues melting. According to the American Centre of data on the snow and the ice (NSIDC), record breaking up recorded in August continues, and the surface of Arctic floe goes up very close to the record of minimums recorded last year, letting think that he will be able to be before beaten mid-September, when the arrival of the autumn will make re-freeze the ocean. Besides, in August, the floe of Markham, in the Canadian north of the Arctic broke up, liberating a 55-kilometre block square compelled to split and to drop thousands of icebergs compelled to melt. In the region of Serson, it is 120 km2 of the ice that parted from some floe and started the drift. An ice which, since she has floated already, will not draw away a well-blended time of rise of the level of the oceans.
For the Canadian researcher Warwick Vincent, questioned by Reuters on September 3rd, it is a sign of the acceleration of warming in the Arctic. He determined a breaking up ten times as sprawling as what he had prognosticated for this summer. The temperature sometimes attained 19,7 degrees in the region of Markham, against a summer average of 8 degrees …
(1) Intergovernmental group of experts on climate.
• To know more about it, notice the effect of a rise of the oceans on the scale of the planet on our simulator.
• Participate in our grant of forecasts on the minimal surface of floe in the Arctic.
Picture: © Denis Delbecq
Article read 2,214 times. Tags:arctique, floe, Canada, level of seas, oceans, climatic rechauffement
Comments in 
*** The Planet X periodically getting closer to Earth ounce in 3,600 years generates numerous climate exchange rates, one being the total warming with its natural consequence – the melting of the glaciers Briefly, here simple percentage the process that took place during the last two periods in which the Planet X has passed between march and Jupiter, the nearest Earth to:
*** 7,200 years ago, during the cataclysm known ace " Noah' s flood ", “sudden exchange rates in temperature, violate avalanches storms and water from Antarctica broke off from their ‘ice prison’ Dr. John T. Considers that open sea pieces periodically Hollin at Maine University (U.S.A.) dope out of the Antarctic ice field creating has huge tide” (Zecharia Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet).
*** 3,600 years ago, during the Jews’ millennium B.C. Exodus from Egypt in the middle of the second, the big cataclysms Earth suffered. “In celestial body that recently entered our solar system – has new comet - very closed to Earth [causing – A/N] the eventual disappearance of the glacier layer“ (Immanuel Velikovsky, "Worlds in Collision").
*** The current situation – the Poles glaciers’ melting accelerating simple percentage.
*** NATIONAL TEA CANADIAN NEWSPASPER - TOTAL WARMING, TEA WAR ONE TERRORISM, AND TEA EXTRATERRESTRIAL LINK TO "PLANET X ": http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/04/17/02340.html
*** NASA AND PLANET X - News from Australia' s National Website:
http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040466-937,00,00.html
*** VATICAN CITY AND PLANET X
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_secretumomega01.htm
http://www.realufos.net/2008/05/why-is-2005-vatican-ufo-video-threat.html
*** TEA RETURN OF PLANET X - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE - ROMA ON 2009
http://www.segnidalcielo.it/PlanetXConference.html
*** TEA PENTAGON WARNS CLIMATE CHANGES TOTAL DEVASTATED WILL BRING:
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/02/22/the-pentagon-warns-climate-change-will-bring-global-catastrophe/
http://www.guardian.co.u k/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
http://www.nap.edu/openboo k.php? isbn=0309074347
It would be possible to see again the new predictions of the rises of waters now …
conclusions which result from these articles soften inmanquablement (not to say contradict bluntly) the theories réchauffistes among whom the journalists of science and life, but that say I, whose media in their group take a deep pleasure has soak us have length of year. Debate is closed says to us al gore: the projections of the computers of the giec is definite. speak so please about this other etudes showing unquestionable links between climate and solar activity, the minimum of maunder (baby age glaciere of XVII°SIECLE) an irrefutable climatological fact is
finally, allow has these scientists (who as some have resign from the giec, extravagant to see the results of their manipulated etudes seeing changed to accredit the these of the anthropogenous rechauffement) that they also make heard their point of view.
That the sun has a role on climate am indisputable. That media forgets to mention that some researchers contradict the thesis of a warming linked to gases with greenhouse effect am just as much indisputable.
But problem is that the relating influence of the sun took a blow in the wing. Of predominating jusqu' some centuries ago, he became these last decades a less essential factor on climate than gases with greenhouse effect. Issued gas, mainly, because of human activities.
The violent and temporary cooling of small glacial age changes nothing there. Climate warms itself up, and the sun is, these last decades anyway, for big thing there. Whatever is the talent of the scientists who calculate the contaire.
Before reading jobs, do not forget to look who finances what. How much jobs are they paid, directly or indirectly, by the industrialists of the oil and, especially, of the coal, who, naturally, reject the idea of a warming linked to gases with greenhouse effect? I am not sure that the SMES which sell solar energy or wind have the thousandth of their resources to finance traitors in the reason of climate.
On the manipulations of results, about what speak to you? Name names, dates, sources and proof. Because on the manipulation of scientific results, the only existent proof this day showed how the American political administration rewrote scientific results to put them in the boot.
The author of these lines accepted no left luggage office of Science and Life. It is an independent journalist who writes you and answers you, in every frankness and any freedom. Frankly, I will love that the reports of Giec send us a "SHORT". But alas, this is not the case. In fact, what is the capacity of your car?
according to you, sceptical climates are a nécéssairement of possessors of powerful cars, from anti ecolos, supporters of escape forward in a consumerist society who make fun of the fact that he will happen apres. it is very practical to get us for idiots who defendent ideas of arriere guard.
disaster and has our door my all the world if in madman as year 40
to look well at the TV one will straight see the exodus of one thousand seeing millions of nobody.
The these of Uramine has all its value, since currently most scientists are manipulate. There is the whole serie of articles has etre publish in magazines, etc without meme etre valid by an equipe serieuse and animee the conscientiousness. He articulate has it, need to see the intensite of the worldwide consurrence economique. Everybody wants to creer a place on walks him economque and nobody is prete for the energetique renouvellables) mutation, seen that this dernieres, according to some cannot re-lay has our needs properly.
Let us not forget that any action has its consequences, therefore since the industrial ere, the intensite of our emissions in CO2 has augment considerablement has what to expect, other than a fad of the temperature?
Is it so difficult to look and to study jobs of those who are not completely in agreement with the theory of GIEC? Why to move them aside from a back of hand by reshuffling us ears with the ugly oil tankers?
Arguments of the other camp so frighten you?
In fact, I do not have car and I of intérets not in the oil lobby. Alone science interests me, and me wonder very how the skull cap (and not carrot, as in the article) from Laurentides melted 9000 years ago without bagnoles and hordes of human pollutants?
Naturally that skull caps (thank you for the correction which I put back) melted or re-formed in the course of time, by the only solar activity. But it well seems that this time, it is not enough to explain what raise the scientific observers for several decades. If of adventure it was necessary to discover that human activities are not responsible for the largeness of warming, the spent thousand millions would not have been it in pure loss. In every new study, it is our understanding of the climate of the planet which advances. And it is nothing.
As for the farmers, I do not know it who refutes warming. On the contrary, those whom I could meet often recall the modifications of seasons. I recalled in these columns some days ago the weight of worldwide agriculture in greenhouse gas emissions, more important although that of transport (http://www.first-calvary-baptist.org/2008/09/manger-de-la-viande-ou-conduire-il-faut-choisir/)
If the ajonction of CO2 in the atmosphere had to warm up the Earth, the experts of the GIEC envisaged that it is the troposhère who had to warm herself up before the surface. And yet he have nothing of it!
If the ajonction of CO2 in the atmosphere had to draw away a fad of greenhouse effect on our planet, this fad would have already taken place again and again, since concentration of CO2 were already much more raised in the past.
When to the farmers, whom you well seem to know, I imagine that they are French mostly. France must represent 1 thousandth of the surperficie of the globe and its climate is not absolutely representative besides of the planet.
On the fad linked in CO2, there is a fundamental difference between CO2's rises of past and the one who is determined today: the ladder of time in which it occurs. In the history of the Earth, when solar activity was parametre number one, the carbon dioxide stocked in the oceans freed itself progressively, on hundreds or thousands of years, as the gas of a bottle of soda escapes. But today, the increase of the content of CO2 is much more fast made, what explains fad perhaps.
http://reporterre.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/au-perou-une-vague-de-froid-affame-alpagas-et-populations/
But it empèchera no soothsayers of dialect of a 50 % likelihood that situation is worse. One chance of two: they are sure of being right!! Where how to make the climatic science of bar of coffee …
Therefore 20 - 30 years it be peanuts compared with 20 million years.
Climatic average does not exist in nature, it is a human convention only with value which the man wants to give him.
You say that you are not a réchauffiste, I take note. However, you seem to bring a lot of credit in the recent theory which leans on rough knowledge and ridiculous direct data when the age of our planet in count is taken.
Fifty years ago, the payaients children funeral of to them parents. Today, I know that fashion is to prepare our death to lighten the burden of our successors. We are the omnipotent generation (proof, we can changed climate) and we have a confidence limited in the genius of the following generations …
If, as I think of it, sun and cosmic radiance (and other unknown phenomena of us) govern well climate, which look will have our children on us, our adequacy and our current beliefs?
GIEC is a political institution, created by policies for policies. In his statutes, it is not a matter to study why of climatic warming, since the culprit is indicated there: human activity. Policies use jobs of scientists, I would say some jobs and some scientists. Conclusions and advice in policies are not scientists' work. Roughly, it is about an opinion poll ordered by a government which is meant to be worldwide. A lot of money for jobs, for wages and for expenses of functioning of thing is injected and nobody feels like killing the hen in gold eggs.
I hasten to say that I do not believe in a conspiracy. I think that it is only about a beam of concordant seen intérets the sums of money hired in process.
In any case, that is it better to support?
The fact that there is a dramatic climatic warming and therefore we must pay attention to our consumption and better manage our activities
WHERE
The fact that on the contrary, there is nothing of the kind, it is perfectly natural and we are for nothing, media us horns and distorted studies there. And therefore we can continue consuming in very go, etc
Personally, in doubt, I prefer supporting the first. Besides, it seems to me that there is more money in game as those who defends the oil that those who defends nuclear technology (there is more interest economically so that media does not speak about climatic warming rather than about the opposite).
Now, I do not see why your sources which make you think that jobs of GIEC, etc are distorted would be more credibles that jobs they - even.
PS: I thought that we were taking in coolbox into a new epoch, excuse my ignorance how it is surement case but earth should not it get colder little by little, rather than the opposite?
You think that we have any choice? What means to manage our activities? You want to tell to stop our activities.
In all our activities, we need energy.
Does the computer which you use, how work? How can you send your comment and that I could read it without a considerable sum of energy?
Manufacture of million computers, obsolete in 5 years max; printing of thousand kilometres of cable; dispatch of many satellites in the space to get to work everything, etc …
Where did you spend your holiday this summer? Are you ready to limit your displacements, or even no more to make it and you think that there will be an impact on worldwide economy if each does the same?
The money of oil tankers is not French (except Total), on the other hand that of nuclear technology yes. It is reason for who this idea brings in money in France. Oil tankers, them, know that it is not possible to go without their product at the moment and do not need to foment conspiracies. Besides, him reduce their production to check the fall of courts.
I support no reason. I am only surprised and upset that we are clubbed in media regarding this theory of GIEC because climatic changeability is rediscovered.
“there will be an impact on worldwide economy if each does the same” exactly but it is not a positive impact for economy if I make a mistake. Personally, I am Belgian and I speak to worldwide title (neither French, nor Belgian).
Now, we really have a media problem, but this nobody can anything there I think no that media tries to manipulate us. Communication has took a too big place in our life. There is so much media and especially so much information that these have to announce things, they cannot speak a little about everything. Of blow willy-nilly, they always hear about the same thing, war in Iraq during the whole time, while the war in Afghanistan always rages so much, etc
But it is another debate.
Otherwise, I think no that we are capable of changing our society (behaviours, etc) in order to check climatic warming indeed. Because our demography, our technology evolved too quickly and our political systems do not have followed. And to manage our activity, we needed a more competitive political system.
“Dictatorship it is ‘strongly your face’ and democracy it is ’cause toujours’” COLUCHE
Nasty but fair quotation. In other words no walks. In 2 cases, the leaders fight for themselves and not to make their work, c-à-dire run.
Then, the men are always it to beat some against others. In the past, this did not pose problem given that the man was a threat for himself. But now it is problematic, because it is a threat not only for himself but especially for the rest of the planet (I doubt that it destroys life on earth but he is going to degrade it so that he will not survive).
I did not disclaim that there is a warming these last decades. What I call into question, it is idea that this warming either unpublished and or extraordinary all over its speed and its ladder.
The measures of temperature on our coincident globe with the end of period called the small age coolbox. As everybody knows: afterwards the rain comes the fine weather. I see therefore nothing that is extraordinary in the warming of the XXth century. Of this warming, we have certainties only since total measures by satellite. Those who try to make believe you that data are sufficient and reliable before this period are in the best the incompetent and in the worst of the liars. To assert it, you only have to notice the cards of the establishment of the stations of measures on earth to note that they were to concentrate in Europe, in USA and in Japan. What represents a small portion of lands. That marine measures are principally circumscribed in the maritime roads and that seas and oceans represent 70 % surfaces who interests us.
There is surface of of 1000km on 1000km where there have been measures never before 1979, what corresponds to the height and the breadth of France. A country where measures are excessive but which climatiquement is worth any similar surface in the Pacific.
This type of information, you will never read it in the World or the Barber. Why?
Media sells some paper or advertising areas. A computer science which says that everything goes well interests nobody and therefore is worth nothing. On the other hand, the announcements of assassination attempts, of accidents, of war and of disasters make live media. A psychoanalyst will explain you it better than me. But it is so.
Media therefore does not get in each other's way to relieve the most harebrained announcements and most anxiogènes. Style, white bears drown for lack of floe into the big North. However, a quick research on Google will learn you that the population of these nice animals is in increase for some decades …
Roughly, GIEC point out where and how to look, and the press its ally of interest magnifies information with a warping microscope. If a grandmother throws on the street a day of big wind, a journalist will speak about climatic warming etc …
The public (to you and I) so alarmed and scared by announced disasters publicity of measures in policies too happy to levy immediately from taxes and levy taxes in very types. There is nothing better as a politician that an imaginary enemy to become necessary and active to the eyes of his voters.
For my part, I feel myself taken enough to be a fool by the successive governments in social, economic and moral domain, for the being also in scientific domain.
Environment, since it is of him that it is, does not have the right, if it is not the one that we want to grant him. We can dangle our Gt of carbon yearly, continue shaving forests, exterminating with our wealth in biodiversity, contaminating our watercourses and our oceans, becoming depopulated our lands, it will not raise us a FINE therefore.
But he is not lacking in reactions and the future which he draws and extremely clearly in us for some. Some carbon too in the atmosphere, it is a potentially apocalyptic nightmare for a géochimiste and finally, in made, for every human being on this planet if he knew about it as much that the first; kinds of living beings in less it is a dreadful loss for a researcher in ecology or for a pharmaceutical business company; a polluted environment it is a nightmare for a Prefect, a Town council and for each of if we knew where goes our money, intended to replace as far as possible, of ecosystematic services in the past undamaged and competitive.
I will always remember a general presentation which we had made in the Social and cultural Economic Council of French Polynesia. Representatives of firms, of labour unions, of association of all country assemble in it. Their reaction at the end of presentation was completely dichotomous. Persons came to greet us, to shake our hand, to thank us for having made them become aware of appraisal and stakes of our development, thing which I had never seen for this type of presentation, still a bit arid. Others felt so much called into question in their behaviour, in the petrol of their life, that they became there aggressive and nihilistes A nice humus with debate, no?
We can develop without rotting our planet (to buy lamps éco, is possible be for those who one the possibility of dévelloper our system of public transport) of simple, very quick gesture who can give us a lot of time later.
Completely in agreement with you on the necessity of action, but attention to the ladders of size: lamps conso bass and of the public transport only for those who can him, this will be never sufficient! Unfortunately, it is really beyond that it is going to be necessary to go …
It is only a personal opinion, I do not say that it is necessary to despair, to give in to panic or to continue contaminating as though of nothing was. But I think that whatever is made, they will never get changed and everything is lost. But not of inquiètude, life will continue, it is persistent you know and she has already known much worse disaster on earth than the man.
Very warmly.
First, RC does not mean to exaggerate thing of a statistical point of view.
There are climates, worldwide climate.
But there is, since it is convenient, the measure of an anomaly of the average of all raised temperatures.
Then, the surface of the earth is composed of oceans which represent 71 % (excuse the few) the surface of the planet.
It means simply that 71 % total anomalies measured every year is the result of evolution of temperatures of the oceans.
That things are very clear: the man has NO MEANS to warm up significantly, in either way, the temperature of surface of the oceans. It is simply impossible. The recent passage in negative stage of PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) proves us-0,2°C in less on total medium anomaly since 2007) - and is going to prove us in the years which come that we cannot decide to warm up the oceans.
The recent analysis of the temperatures of the Pacific at the level of the Equator, between 0 and a few hundred metre deep, leaves besides horrified: thousand millions of cubic metres of water get colder, just like that, in some weeks. We go probably to a second event Niña in 18 months! It had been a long time since it had arrived.
We could also decide to cool down the oceans with SO2, but it would not be a good idea. One more time, the oceans very well make it without our intervention. Of very ways, Chaiten or Yellowstone, or quite other volcano is going to take responsibility for it between tomorrow and some dozens years.
As for the Arctic floe, it is a marronier with long cycle.
It is as a journalistic subject which returns regularly in first page: in the twenties and 30, many articles of American newspapers became alarmed about the breaking up of the Arctic ice.
Independent jobs underline that it is the violence of the common sailors since the beginning of the nineties which divided up the eastern part and the compacté the Western part of the Arctic ice. The dividing up making easier the cast iron, and the Arctic being an ocean, the albédo is very weak and therefore waters quickly warm themselves up.
However, this cycle is probably ended. The oceanic "pomp" of the Atlantic set off again the last year, and the extension of the winter floe should find high levels in five years which come.
As for the summer cast iron: suspense if there are too much soots and particles of coal on the snow, this melts it strongly. They will see in which proportions.
If the single pretext is needed to consume less, as much as it is a token: HEALTH!
CO2 is the equivalent, for plants, the sugar for the human metabolism. Problem at the exit of the pots of exhausts, it is all that there is "around " CO2, and notably fine particles. They are thousands of dead a year in the world due to respiratory insufficiency linked to pollution. Not due to CO2.
Yes, the PUBLIC HEALTH, and and no ecological gruel of junk relieved by indigent media.