NASA Study: Arctic Sea Ice Loss due to "wind patterns"

[TimBikes]

Given the media attention relative to changes in the arctic, I thought this might be of interest...

"A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage...

... the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century..."

See link.

Though I don't have access to the full article in Geophysical Research Letters so I don't know the full scope of the study or detailed conclusions, I'm wondering how much of the changing wind pattern is a result of fluctuations in cycles such as PDO & ENSO.

[efusco]

They really didn't address the cause of the shifting weather and wind in this article at all.

[MegansPrius]

Frankly, your subhead "global warming not implicated" is a bit disingenous, given that we have no access to the full text article or the conclusions it makes, and that the NASA press release makes no such exclusion.

[nyprius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 03:04 AM) [snapback]532800[/snapback]</div>

Though I don't have access to the full article in Geophysical Research Letters so I don't know the full scope of the study or detailed conclusions, I'm wondering how much of the changing wind pattern is a result of fluctuations in cycles such as PDO & ENSO.
[/b]

This sounds like another attempt to say global warming isn't happening or that it's a natural phenomena.

It's interesting that there is virtual unanimity in the scientific communtiy that humans are driving global warming (hundreds of peer reviewed studies saying humans are driving it, zero saying we're not). And yet, many people believe it's not happening. Why? This speaks to how easily people can be misled. The average citizen doesn't have time to study complex issues. So they take the opinion of those they trust without thinking. This is called blind faith. It's also what we did in the dark ages. Religion and superstition came before science. People who said the Earth revolved around the sun were put to death.

Sadly, it seems we're slipping back to this irrational behavior. You don't simply dismiss the scientific community as being liberal if they say something you disagree with. That's childish, irrational behavior.

We must move beyond blind faith to make our world a better place not worse. That means thinking for ourselves. Putting aside the science, common sense is enough to figure out the logical position on global warming. We know we're pulling literally millions of years of carbon out of the ground and putting it in the sky as a known heat trapping atmospheric gas in a short period of time. Taking the default position that this is probably OK is an insult to logic. Assuming that it's OK to massively alter the system that keeps us alive is crazy and hugely irresponsible to our children.

Saying global warming is a natural phenomena is an illogical red herring that only a non-thinking person could buy into. Global warming opponents (ie: those that have been duped into believing the self-serving arguments of Exxon and others) say that warming and cooling cycles have always occurred. Therefore, today's warming is natural. That's insane. It's two separate issues. Of course warming and cooling cycles are natural. The separate issue is, are humans accelerating this natural trend. If we pull millions of years of carbon out of the ground and put it in the sky as CO2 in a short period of time, it is logical to assume we are.

Beyond that, the smartest people in the world on this issue say we are driving global warming.

It's time to end the insane, childish, stupid debate about whether or not global warming is happening. Only someone who is not using their mind could say it isn't happening. We need to move into decisive action to protect our children and do what's right for all of human society.

[efusco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 31 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]532866[/snapback]</div>

Frankly, your subhead "global warming not implicated" is a bit disingenous, given that we have no access to the full text article or the conclusions it makes, and that the NASA press release makes no such exclusion. [/b]

Indeed, it could have been "May be due to shifting weather patterns due to global warming" just as easily. Or "Global warming not excluded as potential factor"

[qbee42]

I agree with the other posters, but let's not beat up the OP too much. It's an interesting study. My first thought was whether the shifting winds are a cause or an effect. As the other posters have said, the change in winds could be from warming, but there is no way to tell in the short term. That's what is so frustrating about global warming. We all know the earth is warming, but it's impossible to quantitatively list all of the contributions. What I wouldn't give to jump forward a few thousand years and look back, just for a bit.

Tom

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Oct 31 2007, 08:46 AM) [snapback]532933[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the other posters, but let's not beat up the OP too much. It's an interesting study. My first thought was whether the shifting winds are a cause or an effect. As the other posters have said, the change in winds could be from warming, but there is no way to tell in the short term. That's what is so frustrating about global warming. We all know the earth is warming, but it's impossible to quantitatively list all of the contributions. What I wouldn't give to jump forward a few thousand years and look back, just for a bit.

Tom
[/b]

Thanks - I fully recognize the post sub-head might be a bit "disingenuous" - although it did get everyone's attention, which of course was my intent! <_<

However, this is also why I posted the link to the discussion of ENSO & PDO. In my opinion and after much reading of the subject over several years, it seems it is almost a forgone conclusion for people to jump to "global warming" and "CO2" as the cause of nearly all of our climate changes. The intent of my posting is to point out that there are other quite significant drivers of climate change and also, that in many cases, we simply don't know the underlying causes of change.

But it's funny - regardless of the scientific support for the observation that that there are many factors involved in climate change and many unknowns - it is typical that many folks inevitably use words like "childish", "irrational", and "denier" in their response.

[zenMachine]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]532957[/snapback]</div>

it is typical that many folks inevitably use words like "childish", "irrational", and "denier" in their response.
[/b]

You need to define "typical" and "many".

Just looking at this thread alone, how "many" of the responders used those words???

[MegansPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Oct 31 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]532973[/snapback]</div>

You need to define "typical" and "many".

Just looking at this thread alone, how "many" of the responders used those words???
[/b]

Well, nyprius used childish and irrational, and Tim added denier. So one post Tim was responding to used two of the three words he found used by the typical and many. Or wait...does this post count now too?

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 31 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]533009[/snapback]</div>

Well, nyprius used childish and irrational, and Tim added denier. So one post Tim was responding to used two of the three words he found used by the typical and many. Or wait...does this post count now too?
[/b]

I wasn't referring to everyone who responded - I was referring to the normal types of responses I get on this subject. I have been equated to everything from a "skeptic" to "denier" to "stooge" to "nazi" on this and other forums. Most people don't use that language - but when folks do, I think it is perfectly within my right to call them on it. <_<