Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[OwlHoot]

From the Beeb's news site

2012-09-07 Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find

So what do BlasterBates and his fellow CUK climate change skeptic boobies make of that?

[BrilloPad]

One cannot take a single data point and extrapolate.

I wonder how much extra funding these "scientists" want?

Anyway global warming is bollux. We had a sh1t summer. And if it does exist we can just get more air con.

[filthy1980]

well it is summer, ice tends to melt when it gets warmer, in a few months time they'll be showing pictures of sad penguins floating away from the rest of the herd on a broken off piece of ice

[Robinho]

The North Pole, 1958

[BlasterBates]

From the Beeb's news site

2012-09-07 Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find

So what do BlasterBates and his fellow CUK climate change skeptic boobies make of that?

If the days keep on getting shorter at the same rate there´ll be complete darkness next year.

Nice alarmist (one might say hysterical) statement but lets look at it somewhat more objectively objectively.

Now looking at this comparison here of ice extent of this year shows more ice than in previous years.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/...ce_extent.html

in 2007 there was 4.93 square kms and now 5.49 square kms

So substantially more ice than in 2007.

So why the "hysteria". Well there was a storm earlier and the ice was broken up, the satellite measurements don´t pick it up, hence they´re missing about million square km´s of ice. By the way it is there; where the ice is completely gone on the satellite, Shell can´t set up their drilling rigs because of too much ice.

The NOAA measurement of ice extent is more accurate than the satellite measurements.

The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors, especially from the mid-1990s on

National Ice Center Arctic Sea Ice Charts and Climatologies in Gridded Format

That´s because they observe the ice rather than relying on a satellite sensor.

The last "record" all sources were declaring as a reord. If there is a huge discrepancy it isn´t really a record low is it.

Don´t worry that ice will be back next year.

Here´s an image that gives you a better view of how the ice is in the arctic:



So what cause the warming over the last 30 years?

SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note - Washington Times

[DodgyAgent]

From the Beeb's news site

2012-09-07 Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find

So what do BlasterBates and his fellow CUK climate change skeptic boobies make of that?

Thanks for kicking this argument off

[d000hg]

You don't need an article or a serious looking graph. Simply posting a photo of a duck would give both sides ammunition to argue their position [again].

[Spacecadet]

You don't need an article or a serious looking graph. Simply posting a photo of a duck would give both sides ammunition to argue their position [again].

Just choose the right duck cretin

HTH BIDI

[IR35FanClub]

I love climate change arguments . Its one of those topics everyone has an opinion on. A bit like religion. However the fundemental difference is that I can understand how people don't believe in god, as there's not really any evidence. But climate change has lots and lots of scientific papers that usally most people have not read. They've just read the daily maul and tory graph, who tends to take a dim view of scientists telling them they need to drive smaller cars (and yet at the same time love lifestyle articles on solar systems and Audi eTrons).

The climate is changing and peopkle say "no its not". Well it is. It's been measured. With thermomemters. Not crystal balls.

So then sketpics say "it's not us". So which of the following statements is not true...

1) CO2 is a green house gas. It's presence on earth means it is warmer than it would otherwise be.
2) Burning stuff releases CO2.
3) Lots of stuff has been burned.
4) The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has for many millena been oscillating between 260-300 ppm.
5) COS Levels are now 370 ppm. Well outside of NATURAL variations due to sun, volcanoes, earths shifting orbit.
6) Its takes a lot of heat to melt ice. About the same energy to get it from -1 to +1 degress as it takes it to get from 1 to 100 degrees.
7) As it's now warmer (as measured by thermometers, not public opinion) more ice will be melted.

Sometimes it's best to ignore politics and opinions and just state some simple facts.

All thats left to argue about is just how much CO2 will cause how much warming, if its bad for us and what we should do about it. And trust me there's plenty to argue about there!

Anyone who thinks it all a con. How about say a cheeky young scientists comes along and proves it's all a cock up in the numbers - the americans have been using farenheit and everyone else centigrade. ooops. He'd win the nobel prize for getting everyone to give up and go and study something else like curing diseases instead.

[Edit]I forgot to say its point 6 has me most worried - once the ice gets melted earlier in the year, and there's none left, that's what I'd call a tipping point. Instead of the excess heat melting ice, it will start to boil off the seas. Like pretty rapidly. If we're lucky we'll got lots of clouds to block the sun, and much more rain. Erm, remind anyone of the last 5 or 6 years of "summers"? In fact since about 2002, when I landscaped my garden, I've noticed that each summer the weather is crap, and then we get a nice sunny september. Looks the same again this year. My own pet consipracy theory is the scientists haven't noticed there aren't actually 380 days in a year, not 365, that's why the spring comes earlier every year. [wink]

[DodgyAgent]

I love climate change arguments . Its one of those topics everyone has an opinion on. A bit like religion. However the fundemental difference is that I can understand how people don't believe in god, as there's not really any evidence. But climate change has lots and lots of discussion papers that usally most people have not read. They've just read the daily maul and tory graph, who tends to take a dim view of scientists telling them they need to drive smaller cars (and yet at the same time love lifestyle articles on solar systems and Audi eTrons).

The climate is changing and peopkle say "no its not". Well it is. It's been measured. With thermomemters. Not crystal balls.

So then sketpics say "it's not us". So which of the following statements is not true...

1) CO2 is a green house gas. It's presence on earth means it is warmer than it would otherwise be.
2) Burning stuff releases CO2.
3) Lots of stuff has been burned.
4) The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has for many millena been oscillating between 260-300 ppm.
5) COS Levels are now 370 ppm. Well outside of NATURAL variations due to sun, volcanoes, earths shifting orbit.
6) Its takes a lot of heat to melt ice. About the same energy to get it from -1 to +1 degress as it takes it to get from 1 to 100 degrees.
7) As it's now warmer (as measured by thermometers, not public opinion) more ice will be melted.

Sometimes it's best to ignore politics and opinions and just state some simple facts.

All thats left to argue about is just how much CO2 will cause how much warming, if its bad for us and what we should do about it. And trust me there's plenty to argue about there!

Anyone who thinks it all a con. How about say a cheeky young scientists comes along and proves it's all a cock up in the numbers - the americans have been using farenheit and everyone else centigrade. ooops. He'd win the nobel prize for getting everyone to give up and go and study something else like curing diseases instead.

So when was there a spell when the climate was not changing and how long did it last? The issue is one of perspective