Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[IR35FanClub]

How can the article claim the melt is unprecedented , then say it is the worst in 1500 years ?

and what caused it to melt worse 1500 years ago ?


two simple questions

LOL, you are a nit picker, get a job on the IPCC review panel.

You mean this...

A heading that says "Unprecedented" and then a sentence that says

"As a scientist, I know that this is unprecedented in at least as much as 1,500 years. It is truly amazing - it is a huge dramatic change in the system," Dr Hansen said."

He's obviously just a climate scientist, not a part time literary grammaticist on the side.

[edit] Or maybe - he's just saying, he doesn't have data any further back than that and can't see anything as melty since then.

[EternalOptimist]

LOL, you are a nit picker, get a job on the IPCC review panel.

You mean this...

A heading that says "Unprecedented" and then a sentence that says

"As a scientist, I know that this is unprecedented in at least as much as 1,500 years. It is truly amazing - it is a huge dramatic change in the system," Dr Hansen said."

He's obviously just a climate scientist, not a part time literary grammaticist on the side.

[edit] Or maybe - he's just saying, he doesn't have data any further back than that and can't see anything as melty since then.

well the vikings used to crops on greenland. so something sure made the ice melt back then.

maybe the warmists should take a leaf out of the sceptical handbook, and not use phrases like unprecedented and amazing, when , as you rightly point out, what they really mean is, 'we are not sure about any of this'


what we do know is that greenhouse gasses warm the planet by 33c over the 'black body' temperature. CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gasses, and that part of CO2 that is man made is about 4%.

Out of that 33c we are producing the square root of fck all, and even if we were warming the planet a little, it will only be to the benefit of mankind

[Taita]

I don't do magic.

I think the issue is what is NORMAL. Not is it allowed to change at all. We've gone well outside of normal. And so scientists have tried to answer the questions how far outside of normal will we go? Will it be bad or is it ok. The answer seems to be it will make things worse for us, not better. Insurance rises, more wars, more deaths (though not as many in blighty as places where they don't have NHS), increased food costs. It won't mean the end of humanity, but more trouble. I think the biggest problems we're like to face is colder winters. Nothing impossible to deal with - as it will only be like living in central Europe, but it means we'll spend more on heating, 4x4s, and winter tyres etc.

One of my mates, who's a complete climate skeptic, had a dream where the Chinese invaded Scotland and build pipelines to get the fresh water out the lochs as their own water was running short. Considering the arugments we've had over climate change - it spooked him as a realisitic future scenario. I think it more likely they'd build a dam and some nuclear desalination plants though.

Good thing the dinosaurs died out. Can you imagine just how much CO2 just one Brontosaurus would produce each day? Also good the early American settlers wiped out millions of bison. OK we have domesticated cattle but something tells me they produce less CO2 than bison.

Not scientific, I know, but it's a gut feeling I have to run with.

I apologise to those who follow the GW religion but surely one opinion is as good as another particularly as there have been many well publicised cases of GW scientists faking data.

[doodab]

surely one opinion is as good as another

This misguided assumption is the root of nearly everything that is wrong with the world. Some opinions agree with reality better than others. Some have massive logical holes in them that you could drive a bus through.

Arguments about what the climate was like 5,000 or 5,000,000 years ago are rather spurious as we didn't have a massive investment in fixed infrastructure then and regardless of whether you believe climate change is man made or not it does appear to be happening, it's effects on people and infrastructure are going to cost a lot of money, and future investment decisions need to take into account the best possible information regarding the changes.

FWIW, I believe that generates a great deal of need for accurate information based on sound research and that more than outweighs any distortion due to the "vested interests / gravy train" arguments that the conspiracy theorists hold up. The amount of money spent on research pales into insignificance compared to what some of the people acting on the results have at stake and while there may be room for improvement it's safe to say that if the research was seriously flawed or untrustworthy then those with a lot to lose would have a great deal of interest in seeing it improved. The fact that you see corporations making multi billion dollar investment decisions based on this information because it's the best available really ought to tell you something.

[Robinho]

There's not much point caring i find.

It's not at all clear what will happen and there is no chance in hell we're going to stop burning fossil fuels.

Best hope is we crack fusion power and render the whole thing irrelevant.

[BlasterBates]

Gosh, I must have been wrong all along.

Really, is that the best that you can offer to prove cliamte change isn't happening?

Real Climate is a blog which represents the opinions of some scientists. If it´s so overwehleming why does Professor Judith Curry a respected climate scientist accuse them of fraud.

[DodgyAgent]

For the record, I think Al Gore is a knob. when he first got all preachy on the subject he had the same CO2 emissions as a small country. I think to be able to
talk the talk you better walk the walk first, especially if you have millions.

And yes, I'm trying to manipulate you all into accepting climate change so I can sell you my next invention. It's not quite ready yet, hence me starting my marketing on CUK as a test bed of resistance. (It is futile).

Oh, and I am serious, I have invented something that means you won't need to buy gas or electric to heat your home... well may be a little bit of electric in winter. I just hope the CIA aren't reading this forum or I'll be disappered in a week.

Nobody (well not me) is saying that you are necessarily wrong. I am just questioning the context of "evidence" and the hysterical fanaticism which people like you try to impose your views (backed with evidence - initself seemingly unproven- that is either anecdotal or based on a few hundred years of scientific facts)

I have rumbled you anyway I reckon this is your device (which replicates how the sun creates energy)

ITER - the way to new energy

[shaunbhoy]

If you wan to go to longer timescales - like 400,000 years including several ice age cycles it varies between 160-280. We're higher than at anytime since the dinosaurs were around.

Yes. Great plant-eating bastards!! Did nobody tell them that screaming around in SUVs and having barbecues all the time was going to come back and bite them on the arse??

[pjclarke]

When BB says that NIC charts show that there was more ice in 2007 he is cherry-picking the one dataset that doesn’t show a record, a dataset that is manually-generated for short-term navigational purposes and is not appropriate for inter-annual comparisons. Walt Meier, the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre writes …

I worked at the National Ice Center for a couple years and have collaborated with them many times since, so I’m familiar with their methods and their focus. Their mandate is to map as much as ice as possible as accurately as possible each day and week in support of ships (particularly DoD ships) operating in and near ice-covered waters. They work hard on getting today’s data analyzed and then tomorrow they start over. They are not concerned with the past. If they can detect more ice today than yesterday, then they map it. If they lose a sensor, they do the best they can with what they have left. If they make an error, they don’t go back and correct it -it’s on to the next day. NIC doesn’t discuss climate or climate change because that is not their purpose and from my experience working there, they just don’t have the time – they’re focused on the here and now.

The charts are produced manually, so there is subjectivity in the analysis that we don’t have in our fully automated processing. This means that there can even be inconsistencies in adjacent regions if they were analyzed by different people.

The folks at NIC do a great job at what they’re focused – navigational support. MASIE is an excellent data set and we at NSIDC find it very useful looking at specific details about the ice (e.g., is the Northwest Passage open or not), but the NIC products are not applicable to studying climate-scale changes.

All the datasets suitable for inter-annual comparisons show a new ice minimum – with probably a week or so of melting to go.






Oh and the submarine in the photo is the USS Skate, which did indeed surface at the North Pole. But that picture is NOT of the Skate at the North Pole in open water, in fact the boat had to punch its way through the winter ice as chronicled in a book written by its CO. Here is an actual picture of the event from the book:



The wrong data, a photos of the right submarine in the wrong place, old press clippings. Convincing stuff, no?

(Hint, guys, if you’re reduced to getting stuff from Steve Goddard, its time to give up)

Arctic Sea Ice Downfall - YouTube

[DodgyAgent]

When BB says that NIC charts show that there was more ice in 2007 he is cherry-picking the one dataset that doesn’t show a record, a dataset that is manually-generated for short-term navigational purposes and is not appropriate for inter-annual comparisons. Walt Meier, the director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre writes …



All the datasets suitable for inter-annual comparisons show a new ice minimum – with probably a week or so of melting to go.






Oh and the submarine in the photo is the USS Skate, which did indeed surface at the North Pole. But that picture is NOT of the Skate at the North Pole in open water, in fact the boat had to punch its way through the winter ice as chronicled in a book written by its CO. Here is an actual picture of the event from the book:



The wrong data, a photos of the right submarine in the wrong place, old press clippings. Convincing stuff, no?

(Hint, guys, if you’re reduced to getting stuff from Steve Goddard, its time to give up)

Arctic Sea Ice Downfall - YouTube

Cue Abu Hamza