COP27 climate summit

Bagheera

Member
234
344
Alaska
Amount of ice is not expressed in surface area.

You also might want to read the fine print of the graph. This is a representation of square blocks that are (from the top of my head) 1 mile by 1 mile. If there is 15% ice coverage in that square mile, it is counted as a full square mile of ice, even tough it might be 85% open water.

Also note that the ice has lost about half of its thickness and that multi year ice is basically reduced to almost non existent.
 
Last edited:

billsreef

Anarchist
1,047
592
Miami
I know from personally witnessing the Arctic on an annual basis for several decades that about 75% of the arctic sea ice has disappeared in the last 30 years alone, I have a hard time to define that as 'slight decline'. My personal observation is consistent with the various organizations that are monitoring sea ice.

Nobody knows how the polar bear is doing, there is not a single expert that even knows how many there are. They are nomadic and can't be counted as 90% of their territory is inaccessible. What we do know is that the ice melts earlier each year and that polar bears need to swim ever larger distances to catch up with the retreating ice edge to go after their seal meat. Many young cubs do not survive the swim. This is resulting in more and more polar bears becoming land mammals instead of sea mammals. Here in Alaska, but also in Canada and Siberia the polar bears are moving south to find more food, while the brown bears (grizzlies) are moving further north for the same reason. Historically they never had overlapping territories, now they do. The can interbreed and it occasionally happens, however, their offsprings are not fertile.

Long story short, the polar bears are certainly impacted by the rapidly disappearing ice, what the result is of that impact is a guess because nobody knows how many polar bears there actually are.
What you say echos what I have heard from researchers that I have talked to over the years. One Oceanographer I used to know (passed away a couple of years ago 😥) gave a talk about an Artic research cruise he was aboard an icebreaker that also had several ice researchers aboard. They encountered no ice at a time of the year that should have had plenty of ice.
 

Bagheera

Member
234
344
Alaska
@billsreef
I sailed in open water from horizon to horizon about 550 miles north of the northern most point of Alaska. Back in the 70's one was lucky if there was 20 miles of navigable water on the north slope.

Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:

sparau

Super Anarchist
1,233
263
Sunshine Coast Aus
Whoever said there is no such thing as a stupid question never met jzk. Hard to believe he is a lawyer, god help anyone if he represents them in court.
Supposedly an engineer as well, so 5 year + 3 year degrees to end up with absolutely zero analytical and research skills.
I smell bullshit, analysis and research is the core of both.
 

Dog 2.0

Super Anarchist
4,068
613
You are very poorly informed. NOBODY knows how many polar bears there are. So nobody knows if their population is in decline or increasing. We do know that about 75% of their habitat is gone and that certainly is an impact.

Natives do not need permission to kill polar bears, they always have done that and always will remain killing them. Go to any random village in the Arctic and you'll see fresh polar bear skins strapped up on racks to dry.
The reason that polar bears have become a problem is that they missed the annual ice edge retreat and need to survive on land in stead of on the ice, see also post above this one.
Bullshit
 

phill_nz

Super Anarchist
3,500
1,149
internet atm
not really
it is in fact one of the more accurate theories that have been spread on this forum

i sort of lost all patience with your mentors quite some years ago, when they said that , ok the arctic ice might be retreating but it is increasing in the antarctic to make up for it

i have never paid a huge amount of attention to the happenings in the arctic .. but the antarctic is another story entirely

i had extreme doubts that what they were saying was true
because
i did know that the facts on the antarctic were largely unknown as far as the total amount of ice that is on it ( mostly missing the thickness )

it has really only been accurately studied within the last 3-4 years by mostly pom teams out on the floating ice
no surprise to most .. but
its retreating far more rapidly than thought
 

sparau

Super Anarchist
1,233
263
Sunshine Coast Aus
Wind and solar 90% of the entire South Australia energy source for > 1 month, they should be a net exporter this year.
Coal already shut down and gas to follow.
All done while our fuckhead ex PM was holding coal in parliament saying "it's nothing to be afraid of".

Add to it solar is expected to drop by another 50% this year !!!
 

Dog 2.0

Super Anarchist
4,068
613
not really
it is in fact one of the more accurate theories that have been spread on this forum

i sort of lost all patience with your mentors quite some years ago, when they said that , ok the arctic ice might be retreating but it is increasing in the antarctic to make up for it

i have never paid a huge amount of attention to the happenings in the arctic .. but the antarctic is another story entirely

i had extreme doubts that what they were saying was true
because
i did know that the facts on the antarctic were largely unknown as far as the total amount of ice that is on it ( mostly missing the thickness )

it has really only been accurately studied within the last 3-4 years by mostly pom teams out on the floating ice
no surprise to most .. but
its retreating far more rapidly than thought
And at some point in the future there will be no ice caps at all, which has been the case for most of the planet's existence.
 

sparau

Super Anarchist
1,233
263
Sunshine Coast Aus
And at some point in the future there will be no ice caps at all, which has been the case for most of the planet's existence.
So basically you're admitting the "polar bears are doing great" is bullshit but after 100,000 years you've decided they've had enough and can go extinct now.
From the polar bears "go fuck yourself you specist arrogant human".
From future generations, "you burnt all that useful irreplaceable resource because you were too selfish, short sighted and blinded by made up doctrine, go fuck yourself"
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,973
476
So basically you're admitting the "polar bears are doing great" is bullshit but after 100,000 years you've decided they've had enough and can go extinct now.
From the polar bears "go fuck yourself you specist arrogant human".
From future generations, "you burnt all that useful irreplaceable resource because you were too selfish, short sighted and blinded by made up doctrine, go fuck yourself"
Polar bears are doing great, and they aren't going extinct. But if it is between them and human flourishing, I am going with human flourishing every time.
 

Dog 2.0

Super Anarchist
4,068
613
So basically you're admitting the "polar bears are doing great" is bullshit but after 100,000 years you've decided they've had enough and can go extinct now.
From the polar bears "go fuck yourself you specist arrogant human".
From future generations, "you burnt all that useful irreplaceable resource because you were too selfish, short sighted and blinded by made up doctrine, go fuck yourself"

Polar ice caps are an anomaly, they are going to melt away and the Polar Bears will have to adapt or die. That would not change if every human on planet earth dropped dead today.
 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,927
4,931
It's easy to measure the absence of ice much like measuring the intelligence of jzk. Not air, just not there.
 

Bagheera

Member
234
344
Alaska
Here is the volume. Just out of curiosity, when you were sailing those waters, how did you measure the ice thickness?
With a ruler, which is more accurate than a satellite measurement. I also measure the actual coverage of the water surface area, it is about half of what the graph says. if you read the fine print of those graphs than you know that any square mile that has 15% or more coverage is considered one square mile of ice. When ice breaks up it disperses, the lower the ice mass, the more it will be spread out. In the 70's the Central Arctic Ocean was generally a 85-80% cover in September (minimum extent), many places now have between 10% and 25% cover. For the volume assessment they take the square mileage and multiply that with the average thickness. Now if 85% of a square can be empty but is multiplied with average ice thickness (about .8m in the summer), you have a shitload of ice recorded that does not exist.

Evidence of the misleading data is the picture I posted above. According to the stats it was covered in ice, because that square mile had an ice flow in it that was more than 15% of the area. As you can see on the picture there is no ice to be seen anywhere. You can verify, the picture shows date, time, lat. and long.

Do you notice the Minimum ice extend trend line in the graph you posted? It starts at 17.000 km3 and in 2022 ends at 3.500 km3? That is a reduction of 79.4% in the last 40 years.

Now bear in mind the fine print of the graphs that I mentioned a little before, because the reality is a lot worse than the 79.4%.
 

3to1

Super Anarchist
Polar bears are doing great, and they aren't going extinct. But if it is between them and human flourishing, I am going with human flourishing every time.
Polar ice caps are an anomaly, they are going to melt away and the Polar Bears will have to adapt or die. That would not change if every human on planet earth dropped dead today.
look at the asinine (right-wing) shitcunts 'contributing' to the 'discussion'... WEEE!
fuck off.
 
Top