Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday. The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%--despite the fact that this year's weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year's minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 - 2000. This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year--and fifth time in recorded history--ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.) "We are now in uncharted territory," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.


Figure 2. Year-averaged and 3-month averaged Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Chapman and Walsh (2001), as updated by the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. I've updated their graph to include 2011 plus the first 9 months of 2012.


Figure 3. Late summer Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al.'s 2011 paper, Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. The solid pink line is a smoothed 40-year average, and the light pink areas shows a 95% confidence interval.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, though the extent is not as low as the current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing. More commentary on this graph is available at skepticalscience.com.

When will the Arctic be ice-free in summer?
So, when will Santa's Workshop need to be retrofitted with pontoons to avoid sinking to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in summer? It's hard to say, since there is a large amount of natural variability in Arctic weather patterns. Day et al. (2012) found that 5 to 31% of the changes in Arctic sea ice could be due to natural causes. However, the sea ice at the summer minimum has been declining at a rate of 12% per decade, far in excess of the worst-case scenario predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20 - 30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week, Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within four years. A study by Stroeve et al. (2012), using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility." Of the 21 models considered, 2022 was the earliest date that complete Arctic sea ice occurred in September.


Video 1. A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds. According to NSIDC, the storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Video credit: NASA.

But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.


Figure 4. Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (top), and sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). Image credit: (Zhang 2007).

Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.

References
Funder, S. and K.H. Kjaer, 2007, "A sea-ice free Arctic Ocean?", Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9 (2007), p. 07815.

Kinnard et al., 2011, "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years".

Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448.

Related info
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 409 - 359

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Quoting KoritheMan:

You mean I'm going to have start getting passports just to hurricane chase? :/


Nope. Just start in Alaska :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jelawat is organizing quite rapidly. JTWC already has the storm up to 50 mph as of 18z and JMA has it at 60 mph (50 mph 10-minute) as of 0Z.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31882

Quoting Progster:
Jennifer A. Francis and Stephen J. Vavrus. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather
in mid-latitudes.(2012). Geophysical Research Letters.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051000

This is a very accessible and recent paper that examines the effect of an observed reduced poleward temperature gradient on the group velocity of the Rossby wave and discusses implications such as an increased duration of severe weather events in the mid-latitudes, especially during the summer and fall. More evidence of the effects of the fire in the attic.
You mean I'm going to have start getting passports just to hurricane chase? :/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Thing342:
That appears to be the 93L that became Gordon's track combined with the last 93L.

Look at the date in time. October... It's a glitch.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
What the!!!!



is this a glitch??


Quantum tropicalteleportation
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
What the!!!!



is this a glitch??
That appears to be the 93L that became Gordon's track combined with the last 93L.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What the!!!!



is this a glitch??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jennifer A. Francis and Stephen J. Vavrus. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather
in mid-latitudes.(2012). Geophysical Research Letters.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051000

This is a very accessible and recent paper that examines the effect of an observed reduced poleward temperature gradient on the group velocity of the Rossby wave and discusses implications such as an increased duration of severe weather events in the mid-latitudes, especially during the summer and fall. More evidence of the effects of the fire in the attic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
325. That is way easier said than done. There is a reason why people have so many children there. Most of these countries with high fertility rates also have historically had very poor healthcare, and until recently many children perished before reaching adult age, necessitating having many children in order to support the parents in old age. With the advent of improved medical technology in these regions, more children live to be adults. Society has not caught up to the improvement, and thus more children are born. Cutting the fertility rate would require changing core cultural values.

In addition, these countries' economies are primarily based on subsistence agriculture. It is still economically advantageous to have many children there, as they serve as farmhands. In developed countries, on the other hand, children become a financial drain on the family, providing no income or benefit.

Finally, as stated before, women have few rights in these countries, and their main roles are as childbearers and caretakers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
I agree.I believe in protecting the environment but I don't want my freedoms taken away in the process.This is what some people discuss the other time.


If you don't want your freedoms taken away, you should support population control.

As I said, when population reaches 9 billion, YOU will be 22% less wealthy and 22% less "free," on average.

It is inevitable. It's called mathematics.


Now a few people in the top 1% to top 10% may benefit, because they are economic vampires living off the excess of everyone else's labor, but for the rest of us, no good can come of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
94L:

Member Since: July 21, 2011 Posts: 83 Comments: 7167
Kind of Off Topic Here

Three Mile Island shutdown triggered

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
93E:

Member Since: July 21, 2011 Posts: 83 Comments: 7167
395. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #7
TROPICAL STORM JELAWAT (T1217)
9:00 AM JST September 21 2012
==================================

SUBJECT: Category One Typhoon In Sea East Of The Philippines

At 0:00 AM UTC, Tropical Storm Jelawat (996 hPa) located at 13.1N 130.9E has 10 minute sustained winds of 45 knots with gusts of 65 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west southwest at 8 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T3.0

Gale Force Winds
===============
150 NM from the center

Forecast and Intensity
======================

24 HRS: 12.8N 129.9E - 55 knots (CAT 2/Severe Tropical Storm) Sea East Of The Philippines
48 HRS: 13.7N 128.9E - 70 knots (CAT 3/Strong Typhoon) Sea East Of The Philippines
72 HRS: 15.1N 128.1E - 80 knots (CAT 3/Strong Typhoon) Sea East Of The Philippines
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
00z Best Track for 93E. Pressure down one millibar.

EP, 93, 2012092100, , BEST, 0, 136N, 1033W, 25, 1007, LO
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14210
Quoting kwgirl:
Fishing is good. But nothing like it used to be in the 60's and 70's. Thank goodness the Government has placed bag and size limits on the fish. Unfortunately, I have been on vessels that go out to the Gulfstream and catch all sizes and filet the undersized before reaching land. Actually, since the recession started we are seeing more poaching of undersized lobster and raiding of fisherman's traps. Imagine what it will be like when we have to totally live off the ocean because of drought. Won't be anything left. So I think the answer is economic breakdown first, followed by war, followed by ?
IN the southeast Bahamas, we've been having increasing problems for years with poachers from the Dominican Republic. The fishing in their area is no longer viable because of the same types of overfishing you described. Here I think our own fisheries are only still surviving because of the Exuma Land and Sea park, which provides a relatively safe zone for fisheries replenishment. Unfortunately most Bahamians don't understand its value.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 21883
Quoting Levi32:
325. Are you really suggesting that the world should regulate families like China?

I'm pretty sure there are far better ways to cut CO2 than stripping freedoms from people.



Ah, but you aren't thinking this through properly.

I've already considered this question/argument and prepared a response.

It's simple economics, the more people who exist the fewer freedoms individuals have.


Example:
If we lived in a utopian society with no corruption, then we'd all own 1/7billionth of the world's land and resources.

Now fast forward two decades, everything else is the same, but population went up 2 billion. Therefore we will all own 1/9billionth of the world's land and resources. Therefore everyone loses wealth, in fact, a net wealth loss of 22% per individual(regardless of currency, because I'm talking real raw resources and commodities, not artificial trade mechanisms).


Therefore, their "right" to have 8 children destroys your "right" to a decent income and living standard, and reduces your "right" to own property, due to pure economics of "one Earth divided by population".

If you double the population, everyone has half the rights, it's as simple as that.


Yes, 3 per woman is more than enough, so an international law limiting to 3 per woman. The exception would be that wealthy families could adopt beyond 3 children. If any nation, such as China, wants further restrictions, they are welcome to do so.


Even the Declaration of Independence never claimed people have a "right to do anything," nor did it claim people have a "right to breed to the point of destroying all God's creation as a necessity of maintaining our existence".


A right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,"...well, but after some point, somebody on the other side of the world having 8 children per woman for the next two or three generations or beyond is starting to infringe on my own right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Obviously, if we each end up with 22% less resources on average, then we all become a little more poor, which implies less food, less entertainment, less fuel for travel, and less of each of these means ultimately less friends too (it's hard to have friend when resources run out and nobody can travel to ever see one another and hang out anyway,) and so on.

You'll get paid the same or less, and land prices and fuel prices and food prices will all be 22% higher, if not higher still, because in capitalism businesses are going to charge whatever they can get away with, not the "fair market value". i.e. see the computers industry, which has a profit margin equal to about 50% of revenues, or see the housing industry, where rent costs between 1/3rd and 1/2 of an entry level employee's income, before you even get to food, automobile, and auto insurance. A block of apartments can pay for itself in as little as 6 years, and is pure profit thereafter, but the rates never go down. The guy across the road from me is getting $900 per month, after the units have paid themselves off...when he started he was charging $625...so they already paid for themselves, and he could afford to lower his charge, but instead he increased it another 50%, and people still pay because, what else would they do? You can't buy a house unless you can pay almost half of it up front, and banks don't lend money unless you don't need it. So young people are screwed either way, and he knows it.


the point is, Republican economics does not work.

The republican would like you to think that everyone can one day own their own small business, if they just work hard enough, and everyone will be in the $200k club one day, but reality is that just doesn't work and cannot work, but they want to promise that to everyone so they can get your vote.

The world does not work that way, because there are a limited number of resources. Romney got caught on that video claiming 47% of people rely on government, well, that is half true, but what he neglected to mention was how little they get paid, and the fact I mentioned just now and the fact everyone making above about 150K per year is doing so by living off of everyone else's excess productivity.

As I've said in the past, even if everyone was a double phd, you'd still need people working for the sewer company, you'd still need people flipping burgers, cutting trees, cutting lawns, raising food crops, etc, the only difference is their standard of living would actually be LOWER due to having to pay off that insane amount of college debt, but they don't tell you that in economics class either.


Real world economics actually works more like an RTS than the crap the "economists" talk about on television. When the resources run out, you're screwed, and it doesn't matter how good you are at what you do.

Real world economics is about limited resources in energy, food, lumber, and land primarily, and is not directly correlated to the near-criminal, unethical "stock market" system of paper wealth in wide use today, which serves primarily as a mechanism for those who already have wealth to rob those who do not, hoarding a larger and larger share.


So....

This post is not primarily about politics, even though some political content exists here.

It's simple fact and realism.

9 billion is strictly worse than 7 billion for both wealth and liberties of individuals...


The only way you MIGHT equal it back out would be through a radically disruptive, dirt cheap, clean, renewable energy technology as a bare minimum, but the last several candidates for that are apparently hoaxes. The closest things we have to that are wind, solar, and geothermal, but I've already discussed that.


Anyway, when the world population increases to 9 billion, each person will be 22% less "free" than when it was 7 billion, as a simple mathematical fact.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
391. chawk
I do not think the average US citizen realizes how man made or not, this perceived climate change (global warming) affects our financial future. I am not sure I buy into it completely. I have lived on the Gulf of Mexico for 24 years and have not seen the average water rise even 1" on our dock. Saying global warming is thawing the poles and glaciers and will cause sea levels to rise into New York City is like saying when the Ice cubes in my scotch and water melt the glass will over flow onto my key board. I do not doubt there is climate change, that is partially the definition of weather, but to say we are at fault and we need a committee(or one world government) to address the problem, that is the definition of Karl Marx dream fulfilled. The one part of our lives we cannot control will now require the peoples hard earned money to pay the government to create a department of climate management with thousands of employees with pensions lifetime health care and the ability to change careers and double dip. The facts are that there are positives from the Artic warming. This year has produced record amounts of Crill and as a result, all Artic sea life has florished. There are effects that remain to be seen but no matter how severe they cannot effect mankind as badly as a government that removes the will of the people. Our government, the insurance industry,and scientist from Government funded schools have perpetuated this form of control to a point it has greatly influenced insurance rates and the very monthly payments the average homeowner has to make. This movement is partially responsible for the economic downturn of 2008 and will not stop until the entire world is on it's knees begging for help. This is what I call "Man Made Climate Change"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting MAweatherboy1:

You mean you trust this?

Prob of RI for 25 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean(12.8%)
Prob of RI for 30 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 8.4%)
Prob of RI for 35 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 5.0%)
Prob of RI for 40 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 3.4%)
Don't be pedantic, Jonathan. You know full well I meant for truly tropical systems. :P

Models don't handle subtropical systems well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MAweatherboy1:

You mean you trust this?

Prob of RI for 25 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean(12.8%)
Prob of RI for 30 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 8.4%)
Prob of RI for 35 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 5.0%)
Prob of RI for 40 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 3.4%)
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
The new SHIPS run on Nadine is quite interesting. It initializes it as an extratropical cyclone, then makes it subtropical at 12 hours and tropical at 36 hours. It also shows it becoming a minimal hurricane again in 2-3 days.


SHIP had 92L as a monster.
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14210
The ATCF just adjusted 94L's pressure back down to 1006mb:

AL, 94, 2012092100, , BEST, 0, 318N, 548W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 350, 0, 0, 0, 1013, 275, 150, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, M,
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
The new SHIPS run on Nadine is quite interesting. It initializes it as an extratropical cyclone, then makes it subtropical at 12 hours and tropical at 36 hours. It also shows it becoming a minimal hurricane again in 2-3 days.

That would be quiet interesting, I'm not totally sure whether it is fully tropical right now. I doubt Nadine becoming a hurricane in a few days.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7940
Quoting KoritheMan:

I don't trust SHIPS, except for the rapid intensificaton index. LGEM tends to do better.

You mean you trust this?

Prob of RI for 25 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean(12.8%)
Prob of RI for 30 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 8.4%)
Prob of RI for 35 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 5.0%)
Prob of RI for 40 kt RI threshold= 999% is 999.0 times the sample mean( 3.4%)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Remember when the ships and LGEM had 92L as a cat 3 in the caribbean..good times..good times...
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16756

Quoting MAweatherboy1:
The new SHIPS run on Nadine is quite interesting. It initializes it as an extratropical cyclone, then makes it subtropical at 12 hours and tropical at 36 hours. It also shows it becoming a minimal hurricane again in 2-3 days.
I don't trust SHIPS, except for the rapid intensificaton index. LGEM tends to do better.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Jelawat is not a name i can take seriously....
Jelawat is megawatt's little sister; not to be messed with.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The new SHIPS run on Nadine is quite interesting. It initializes it as an extratropical cyclone, then makes it subtropical at 12 hours and tropical at 36 hours. It also shows it becoming a minimal hurricane again in 2-3 days.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mitthbevnuruodo:


Hahahaha or YOU will be!? :P

I have to agree though, she aint no Michael! Persistant though...and kinda hope she does some crazy thing to keep herself going for another week just to keep the computers going haywire LOL
Storms just haven't been wanting to die this year so fast.I thin k the quickest time a storm died was Joyce or Florence.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16756

Quoting JLPR2:


XD

I'm going to guess our different views might have something to do with my first language.
Most likely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13508
Quoting washingtonian115:
Remember the NHC used "Hesitant" in their outlook.I bet they'll be glad when this storm is gone.


Hahahaha or YOU will be!? :P

I have to agree though, she aint no Michael! Persistant though...and kinda hope she does some crazy thing to keep herself going for another week just to keep the computers going haywire LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
No intensity change to 94L:

AL, 94, 2012092100, , BEST, 0, 318N, 548W, 35, 1007, LO
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
93E looks like is slowly consolidating.

Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14210
Quoting captainmark:
A certain western country I know of rewards women with lots of children with more welfare and food stamps. In return, they vote those politicians back into office for supporting a welfare state.


I don't really want to get into any debate...but if you're referring to the US, I've not lived there for over a decade...but don't remember anyone having many children cause they got 'rewarded' with welfare and food stamps. I was really rather poor for a while after my first daughter was born, as I was very ill afterwards and couldn't work and my hub at the time was making very low wages....I did receive food stamps for a few months, but nothing beyond that...and I certainly didn't feel I was being rewarded for having a child! I had paid into the system since I was 15 though, so reckoned a bit of help while I was ill was warranted.
I don't know what it's like now, but in Calif, I never knew of a big welfare culture...and I did go to an inner city high school for a while. the main welfare I ever knew of, was food stamps.

Now, if you're talking the UK, it is different. But even here, I have a hard time saying people are 'rewarded' for being on benefits (even though they are much more prevalent here than the US). Most people on them, don't live lives of luxury by any means, and struggle week to week. It's not a glamorous way of life for sure. It is if you receive them and are a criminal (making money under the table or by actual crime) or claiming fraudulently though!

Anyway, my point was, many other countries, women are just oppressed and have no choice in how many children they have. I'm sad you use that for some kind of opening into a left-vs-right welfare-vs-no welfare comment...when it had nothing to do with that. Being you do such, I assume you probably have no concern over the actual meaning of the comment, and thus shows why, those things will likely never change.
A good day to you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Jelawat is not a name i can take seriously....


You should. It is the amount of energy produced by Jello.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 25990
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Jelawat is not a name i can take seriously....

When it becomes a super typhoon perhaps you will be able to take it more seriously.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
I wish this negative NAO pattern would set up a few months from now...

I'll be happy.That means cold air will spill into the U.S and if a storm happens to be around then we can get snow!.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16756
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Jelawat is not a name i can take seriously....

Neither is Oscar, if 94L is named, to me but we have to deal with it.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7940
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Jelawat looks suspicious.



Jelawat is not a name i can take seriously....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I wish this negative NAO pattern would set up a few months from now...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting islander101010:
been watching water levels now at this location merritt island florida for 30 yrs i have not seen any change out of the ordinary yet.
most of the melt water actually is out in the regions of deepest water in the oceans just as with wind
water should have a Coriolis effect where it pulls the water up in the worlds deepest sections cause by the spin of the earth
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
She doesn't look like the typical 65mph TS but she is still going good apparently. We will see what the NHC does at 11pm for her intensity.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7940
366. JLPR2
Quoting KoritheMan:

Oh you.


XD

I'm going to guess our different views might have something to do with my first language.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxchaser97:
Nadine is back up to 65mph winds and a 981mb pressure, she doesn't want to give up.
Remember the NHC used "Hesitant" in their outlook.I bet they'll be glad when this storm is gone.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16756
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Well...that's pretty, uh, unexpected.

Probably got an ASCAT pass.

Yeah it is, here is the latest ASCAT pass.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7940
Quoting Levi32:
325. Are you really suggesting that the world should regulate families like China?

I'm pretty sure there are far better ways to cut CO2 than stripping freedoms from people.


As much as I don't like my freedom of choice messed with...a lot of those places, women have no freedom of choice to begin with. Not that I disagree, just saying
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Nadine is hanging in--and strengthening:

AL, 14, 2012092100, , BEST, 0, 359N, 280W, 55, 981, TS, 50, NEQ, 0, 0, 50, 70, 1014, 425, 70, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, NADINE, M,

Well...that's pretty, uh, unexpected.

Probably got an ASCAT pass.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31882
Nadine is back up to 65mph winds and a 981mb pressure from the latest ATCF, she doesn't want to give up.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7940
Quoting Bern99:

And you know what?

The best way to achieve that is to raise the standard of living of people there, especially by educating women.

A worthy cause.

Of course, reducing the amount of CO2 that's dumped out by the already developed nations is just as important. No point spending big $$ to reduce potential future emissions from the third world, if the first world (that caused the problem so far) just keeps on making it worse.


The standard of living there is so low because the population growth is so high.

Children are sold into slavery in Africa, to this day, whether you are aware of that or not. The girls are sold into sex trades, and the boys are often sold to mining companies or farming companies, in some cases where such exists. The mother literally sells the children because she can't afford to raise all the...children she keeps bearing...

They've known what condoms are for many decades, and they've been taught enough in the U.S. and European funded schools that they ought to at least know the basics about common sense and economics in a family, but they still do the same things.


Let me just say a bit more on this, because in many cases I consider these "larger families" as being child abuse in and of themselves. Even among wealthy families in the U.S. and other places. What sane person would want 8 children, never mind the 20 that the "XX and counting" couple had had? Ok, I don't know what they are up to now, but they need psychological counselling. The times I watched some of their show, I found it absolutely freakish and bordering on insanity. It's also a form of abuse against the older and middle children, as they are coerced to raise the younger ones, instead of having fair life choices of their own.

I came from a family where 4 generations ago, great grand-parents on all 4 branches of the family had 7 to 16 children per couple, and they all lived in extreme poverty; with sometimes four, or even all 7 children in one case sleeping in the same room until adulthood, which to me is an outrage.

Of course, In the case of one couple, I wouldn't exist if not for the 15th or 16th child. I forget which my grandmother on that side of the family is, but then so does she, so I don't feel so bad. Anyway, it's obscene.



For the Islamic nations both in Africa and the middle east, they are not THAT poorly educated, yet they are taught to mass produce babies at the highest possible rate, because of their twisted religion.

For other African nations, there are other issues. Governments are corrupt and have squandered resources for generations, or else they are controlled by rivaling warlords who waste all the money on useless crap, instead of helping with infrastructure.


Education doesn't help if there's no relevant niche in the market place for demand. All of the middle and high tech markets are dominated by U.S., European, and Eastern markets, and to a lesser degree, rising Brazil. Even if you magically educated them all to developed nations' college level, it would take decades for any significant change to occur, simply because they have no self-supporting infrastructure of any kind.

In fact, some nations in Africa which deal in diamonds would have almost no economy whatsoever if other nations in the world were rational. People favor "natural" diamonds over synthetic for Jewelry for sentimental reasons, even though the synthetic ones are better in every way. If westerners were rational, these nations would have no income at all, which only compounds the problem, but if they were rational, they wouldn't have 8 children per woman.


The African nations are so far behind in education that their I.Q. scores are up to 2 deviations below normal for developed nations. Statistically, catching that up to present day western averages and far eastern averages, from top to bottom, would take at least another 50 to 100 years, assuming the Plus 3 points per decade trend...


But even if they had the education and training, so what? There is no demand for them in high tech or mid-tech jobs, because the existing producers already produce more of these products than the world needs, which is part of the reason the recession happened in the first place.

Not only is demand for these jobs not rising globally, it's actually decreasing. Remember, Foxconn is firing 400k to 500k employees over the next few years due to automation making human labor obsolete, and that's just one company.

We're ahead of them by like 1000 times the water per capita, ten times the brain power per nation, and 1000 years worth of organized education, and what little they do have was given to them by the U.S. and Europe, and all so they can call for our deaths on television...

You think they're going to catch up in a few decades?

If the average African who is smart enough to bother taking an I.Q. test was placed in an American school, they'd be considered mentally disabled. That's not racism or nationalism, that's a fact based on world average I.Q. scores.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 409 - 359

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
63 °F
Scattered Clouds