Why climate models underestimate Arctic sea ice retreat?

by Serf Tue Oct 18, 2011 14:18

tap tap.....

Thats the sound of my fingers tapping, waiting for the oil company shill claiming to be a "real scientist" to respond to the revelation that he was using diagrams specially crafted by a well known climate conspiracist
[ Jo Nova: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova ]

funded by the famous billionaire Oil barons, the Koch brothers
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_brothers ]

While claiming patronisingly to only entertain real science in the debate

You really can't trust people like this
Be vigilant people. Lies and half truths abound in this debate.

by opus diablos Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:57

Ah but I did. The data was RS's own pseudo-quarkscience spin.

If you can see the telscope is bent, not much sense analysing its images. Ask a science junior.

by Rational Ecologist. Mon Oct 17, 2011 09:54

Unfortunately, I think your haiku-like history of the world looks increasingly like the path you are on. I hope not, I am not 100% sure but if I had to bet, I would be going with your scenario. The timeframe is up for discussion, however, we have to fight back and hope we can make a difference.

by Serf Sun Oct 16, 2011 09:20

Heh! "Real Scientist" is pasting diagrams created by JoNova a known climate skeptic conspiracist whose research was not on climate but on muscular dystrophy and who is funded by the heartland institute and the famous billionaire koch brothers.

It doesn't get better than this!

Here's some common knowledge about JoNova:

As a blogger Nova concentrates on disputing the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and also covers related topics such as Peter Spencer's hunger strike against New South Wales laws on combating climate change.[11] Nova had a five-part debate on AGW with Dr Andrew Glikson, first on Quadrant Online,[12] and continuing on her own blog.[13]

Despite the support she has received from the Heartland Institute, she has downplayed the funding available to sceptics. Writing on "The Drum", ABC's current affairs website, she said "Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil's supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking". She pointed out that as well as funding sceptic organisations such as the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil had given to carbon-friendly initiatives such as $100 million to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for researching biofuels.[14]
Joanne Nova and her partner David Evan's web site sciencespeak.com[1] includes presentations and other documents which postulate the existence of conspiracy and corruption in climate science[15]. The presentations and documents at the web site present evidence which has been disproved, but continues to be used by Joanne Nova both in the presentations available and also at her public speaking events[16]. For example, the poor siting of some temperature measurement stations in the USA is presented as proof that "The Western Climate Establishment is Cheating"[15], despite a reanalysis of the data by Dr Richard Muller, with preliminary results presented to the US Congress that "the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations"[17]. The analysis was partly funded by "the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation"[18]. A study which contradicts the claims in Evans and Nova's document, with funding from "Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch [who] are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", and performed by "a longtime critic of the global warming consensus"[18] makes it unlikely that the conspiracy proposed by Evans and Nova exists[18].
Another claim in the document "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt"[15] is that "The western climate establishment run the Argo [ocean monitoring] network, but they have made it extraordinarily difficult to obtain the ocean temperature from the Argo data"[15]. In contrast to the claim, the Argo data (and free data viewing software) is mostly online and is easily accessible at the NOAA web site for Argo[19], and at the Argo project web site[20].

So....sources = Conspiracists funded by the koch brothers RS?. LMFAO ROFL ;-) !!!

by Real Lyingtwit Sun Oct 16, 2011 08:28

yeah thats right RS. drown everyone out in cut and pastes. Thats what a real climate scientist does.
There there, one day you will be up to arguing with the real" real scientists" on RC instead of a climate change backwater site like indymedia.

Paste paste paste.

Ok I'll play paste tennis with you for a bit RS since you won't bother to do it on RC site for fear of intellectual evisceration:
This is also an OFFICIAL press release post from the actual university Zeebe does his research at
i.e. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa

Ancient global warming episode holds clues to future climate, UH Manoa researcher says
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Contact:Richard E. Zeebe, (808) 956-6473
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology

When scientists take Earth‘s temperature, they usually use thermometers. But when scientists want to figure out Earth‘s temperature in the past, they have to rely on other tools. One of these is deep-sea sediment cores (see Figure). Deep-sea sediments contain fossil remains of tiny marine creatures and other materials that sink to the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these materials pile up and build climate archives that tell stories about Earth‘s history. Today, scientists recover those archives during ocean drilling expeditions aboard research vessels such as the JOIDES Resolution (see Figure).
Now a team of scientists, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa‘s School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, has examined data from sediment cores from around the world to study an ancient global warming episode, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. This warming event occurred about 55 million years ago and provides important clues about what the future may hold. By studying the past, the researchers contribute to better forecasting the future — a principle once expressed by the English historian Edward Gibbon: "I know no way of judging of the future but by the past."

There is little doubt among scientists that the Earth is warming because of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. But exactly how much the Earth will warm — say until the end of the 21st century — is still uncertain. In their study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, Zeebe and his team help to resolve the question by studying a possible analog in the past. Using sediment archives and theoretical tools, they provide estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the warming episode 55 million years ago.

The team had to go back that far in time because this event may be the only one during the past 55 million years of similar scale and pace as the current human disruption. At that time, global surface temperatures rose by 5—9°C within a few thousand years. At nearly the same time, a large amount of carbon was released, probably from the dissociation of oceanic methane hydrates. By comparing the change in ancient temperature and carbon dioxide levels, Zeebe and his team provide clues about the magnitude of global warming during large and rapid increases of greenhouse gases.

What the team found was quite unexpected. Based on current knowledge about Earth‘s climate system, they expected a three- to eightfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to explain the 5—9°C warming. Yet, they found only a less-than-twofold increase.

Zeebe, an oceanographer at UH Mānoa, says: "We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon."

The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unknown at present.

"There are a few ideas what may have contributed to the additional warming. But I don‘t think we fully understand these events of intense and rapid global warming," says Zeebe.

If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated. Undoubtedly, the Earth was a different place 55 million years ago and comparison with today‘s situation is imperfect. Nevertheless, the work of Zeebe and his co-workers suggests that the future climate could hold some surprises.

"By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we‘re gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain," Zeebe says.

----Zeebe, R. E., Zachos, J. C., and Dickens, G. R. Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming. Nature Geoscience, Advance Online Publication, July 13, 2009.Figure: Scientific drilling ship JOIDES Resolution. The sediment archives obtained during ocean drilling programs give scientists a glimpse into Earth‘s climatic history (photo credit: Integrated Ocean Drilling Program). Inset: Deep sea sediment cores across the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The sections of light brown color consist mainly of calcium carbonate, whereas the dark red/brown section is a clay layer, representing the onset of the interval of intense global warming and ocean acidification 55 million years ago (photo credit: J.C. Zachos).

For more information, visit: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO578

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Hmmmm....The actual author of the paper says exactly the opposite you are saying RS? Aren't you embarrassed by that, given you are supposed to understand them scientific papers and all unlike us climate yokels at indymedia!!

more paste tennis anyone? or will you just go and actually participate on a real climate site such as the RC site instead of annoying people here that you think you might fool with your selective pastes of articles from 2009 and calculated arrogant put downs to try and bully people into silence or agreement.

in future, If you must continue this paste tennis nonsense then please link to the actual article with a short quote rather than drowning and swamping the entire thread with huge pastes like we both did this time around. Ideally just go away and do your selective pasting on the RC site forums where real "real scientists" can eat you alive.

by Real Scientist Sun Oct 16, 2011 08:21

I pasted a link to a site full of rebuttals to your theories from real climate scientists.
I'm not putting forward 'theories' Real Lyingtwit - I'm showing you the real-world-observed data that proves that Models have failed to predict events in the real world - If they cannot do so then they are wrong - it's basic enough logic.so I'm surprised you're having such a hard time understanding that

surely then you should be able to identify these rebuttals which you claim exist.

For example

where exactly is the evidence ,which you claim exists, which contradicts the posted graph showing the Models 'prediction' of Ocean temperature and it's rapid and extreme divergence from observed ocean temperature?

Where exactly is evidence, which you claim exists, which falsifies the posted graph of Climate Model predictions of Temperature rises versus rises in levels of CO2, over time, and compares those predictions to observed reality?

If as you claim this evidence exists, then surely you should be able to identify it, no?

Otherwise one might begin to suspect that you have not even bothered to check that the website you linked to actually does contain the actual evidence you claim it does, evidence which you seem to believe proves the posted graphs to be false

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 22:02

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&I...27496

Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said. "This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

The paper in question -Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming - is available here - (PDF) http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Zeebe_etal_ngeo578.pdf -

anyone, even Serf and RealLyingTwit (even Opie!!) can download it and read it for themselves

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 21:35

Graph of Climate Model prediction of Temperature rises versus rises in levels of CO2, over time

Models Vs Raelity - Models lose . . . . again

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 21:30

Ocean Temperature, as predicted by the Models Vs. What Really Happened

Models Vs Reality - Models lose

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 21:17

DO let me know

by Real Lyingtwit Sat Oct 15, 2011 21:07

FFS RS. I pasted a link to a site full of rebuttals to your theories from real climate scientists. You declined to take it as evidence. You then proceeded to berate people for not offering evidence.

To me essentially it seemed like you wanted me to cut and paste the evidence from there to here in order for it to be considered as evidence. A rather pointless exercise.

I think you need to understand what a post is saying before replying to it.

No wonder you are too scared to tout your theories over at the RC site. They would eat you alive!

You're right. Probably best to stay in the climate science paddling pool here at indymedia.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:53

what does my ability to cut and paste add to the argument?

Yes that certainly is a mystery, and I cannot see how it would add anything to any argument you may advance . . . . once you actually get around to putting forward an argument, that is.

but I really have no idea why you are asking me since no one has asked you to do anything of the suxh thing - once again there really is no need to go inventing statements which you want to argue against, and attributing those statements to me - that's called a strawman argument.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:46

"he essentially asks that we cut and paste the same rebuttals from there to here, while refusing to read them on the original site"

No one has asked you to do anything of the sort - the false allegations and smears just get more and more ridiculous - again there really is no need to go inventing statements which you want to argue against, and attributing those statements to me - that's called a strawman argument.

by Serf Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:39

ha! now who is getting free with the unsubstantiated smears!

Heh! Sounds like the liddle "real scientist" got taken down a peg or two at that site already! ;-)

awww! poor liddle RS

by Real Lyingtwit Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:35

Yeah. Serf you are right.
he essentially asks that we cut and paste the same rebuttals from there to here, while refusing to read them on the original site.

what exactly would that pointless extra step prove? That I can duplicate information needlessly?

FFS RS, just go and read them at the site I linked to.
Then take your theories up with the real scientists there, (if you have the balls that is!)

This is not a climate site, except for puffed up second rate climate posters like yourself looking for an easier time of it.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:33

"RS wouldn't last two minutes on RC forums"

the level of censorship at RC is quite extreme even by the norms of Pro-AGW-blog standards (which are themselves already fairly extreme)

Not only do the Mods censor anything they disagree with they also engage in heavy censorship of the contents of posts, as well as ex post facto censorship - In the opinion of many the ethical standards of the RC Mods are some of the lowest to be found on the web

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:27

A graph showing recent temperature date (averaged) with trends superimposed - data sourced from Hadley Centre (CRU of Climategate fame) HADCRUT3 data set - and also from Satellites -

HADCRUT3 shows flat line trend over the time period -
Satellites show slight downward trend over the same time period

by Serf Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:23

Nah, RS wouldn't last two minutes on RC forums so he has to make do with spouting his brand of bolshy dodgy science on sites like indymedia where he knows his claims won't face much real scrutiny and he can still convince some people with his patronising and arrogant posts.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:17

way to write off a whole website full of scientists writing knowledgably on the topic of climate science!!

no one did anything of the sort - again there really is no need to go inventing statements which you want to argue against, and attributing those statements to me - that's called a strawman argument.

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:14

do let me know

by Real Lyingtwit Sat Oct 15, 2011 20:10

"I'm confident enough in the veracity of my own conclusions, thanks anyway"

way to write off a whole website full of scientists writing knowledgably on the topic of climate science!!

How scientific!

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 19:57

I'm confident enough in the veracity of my own conclusions, thanks anyway - I'm conversant enough with the literature and arguments on BOTH sides of the arguments at this stage - that is after all how I arrived at the conclusion that the AGW theories are seriously flawed

"Now fuck off "

Wow - the 'science' in that statement is blinding me ;-)

stop brow beating everyone with your half digested science."

I haven't brow-beat anyone - all you have been asked to do is refute it - and you have consistently refused to do so, preferring instead to rant about Corporations and hurl insults.

You're entitled to hurl insults if you cannot provide any proof I suppose (though the site rules actually say you are not, but what the hell . . .) but it really just makes any case you want to make look decidedly weak when all you have is insults when someone asks you to defend it.

and your fox news like claims of being "fair and balanced".

I made no mention of either "Fox News" nor any mention "fair and balanced" (though, now that you bring it up, I generally am both, certainly compared to either of you two) , so there really is no need to go inventing statements which you want to argue against, and attributing those statements to me - that's called a strawman argument.

by @OD Sat Oct 15, 2011 19:45

"We can all select data to bolster our cases"

Do please - I really wish you would, but so far you have not.

by Real Lyintwit Sat Oct 15, 2011 19:39

Just go here

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_ta...c.php

You can knock yourself out reading the arguments against your so called "real science".

These arguments are posited by "real scientists" on the "real climate" website. You'll find even more detail there. Including a decent one about the cloud theory you are so fond of here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/c...-8796

Now fuck off and stop brow beating everyone with your half digested science. and your fox news like claims of being "fair and balanced".

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 18:54

the only one here bullying anyone is you and you friend Opie - I have mostly confined myself to commenting on the scientific aspects of Climate change: I have posted Scientific papers, Data and graphs clearly demonstrating that the theory is nonsense - that you prefer to dismiss this as cherry-picking is immaterial, as YOUR opinion doesn't really matter to whether or not the Theories are shown to be false.

Whether you accept this or not matters not one bit to anyone else, certainly not to me, as your uninformed opinion is not at all an issue for me, and does not factor in the formation of any of my own, better informed, opinions on the matter

Both you and Opie, and everyone else here have strenuously avoided addressing ANYTHING scientific.

So far not one of you has discussed any specific aspect of the science - you seem terrified of doing so, preferring instead to launch personal attacks.

If you have anything relevant to say about the science of climate Change then say it - vague unspecific rants against those dastardly anonymous 'Corporations' are just smokescreens to cover the fact that you cannot refute any criticism made of the AGW theories.

You don't even seem to understand the theories from what I can see, but yet seem determined to defend at all costs Theories which you do not seem to fully understand - as I said earlier, that seems pretty crazy to me, but far be it from me to tell you how to spend your time - what you choose to do with your own time and what you choose to believe in is none of my business really, but when you demand that others also believe this nonsense then I object, and ask for your proof to back up your beliefs.

When asked for some proof though all you have is insults - which quite strongly suggests that you have no proof at all for what you claim is a deadly threat to us all.

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 18:36

No, you nay not . . .

by Real Lyingtwit Sat Oct 15, 2011 18:17

"BUT personally I refuse to sit by and just let people bastardise 'Science' to serve their own political agenda"

And I refuse to sit by and allow corporations to hijack science to serve their own greedy profit agenda while messing up the ecosystem for the rest of us and using those profits to send out an army of apologists and shills far and wide on the internet to bully people in discussions about global warming and other environmental topics.

I for one do not trust you one bit.

Your abrasive approach which you can seemingly just switch on and off at will is even more suspicious in that it suggests that you are deliberately applying nasty bullying tactics to shut down further discussion as long as you can get away with them and then modifying them when they are unmasked to make sure your posts stay up. Quite suspicious

"Real scientists" don't feel the need to abuse people having a discussion and.are interested in the search for truth not doing corporate PR by twisting science to say what their corporate benefactors want.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Oct 15, 2011 17:55

You put away the handbag, and apply your self-proclaimed forensic scientific 'realism' to the concept of data selection for tendentious argumentation on behalf of preconcieved polemical point-scoring and self-gratifying attempts at put downs.

For starters, its a transparent methodology, which only alienates from what may even be a valid stance; but who is going to give credence to boorish insults claiming some spurious(because blatantly SUBJECTIVE)'real' science, a dogmatic stance more appropriate to a maynooth mullah than someone even vaguely acquainted with scientific methods and integrity?Most scientists have a modicum of modesty, not your strong point.

We can all select data to bolster our cases, and some of us can detect such tactics and, as I say, tend to suspend credence from the source indulging itself so transparently(even if it fails to perceive itself)in such bludgeoning.

Sorry if I sank your rubber ducky, but my bullshit detector lights up when i discern methods I practised in my irresponsible teens as a door-to-door hawker of dubious items to a creduluous public. But at least I have the excuse of being able to say I was selling to the rich. You, on the other hand, are in a position to mislead the informationally poor, if they succumb to your spiel, whatever the merits of the underlying case.

Rather than take offence, take a tip. It might improve your bullshit delivery rate, to the immense satisfaction of your employers.Or at least stop digging.
In street language, its called 'smelling a rat'. aka prodding the poke for the pig in the bacon market, lest it prove a cat needing exit from a bag.
Not uncommon. Or will you deny the existence of premeditated pseudo-science for ulterior motives and claim such things are figments of feverish imagination only?

Apologies for not replying in kind, but it wouldn't, ultimately shed light on the issue of climate turmoil, species migration and collapse due to warming effects(however generated)the projections for viticultural moving northwards in britain etc, etc,ocean acidification, population vs resources and all the serious issues bullshit diverts us from to the advantage of the usual corporate suspects.
Or, to nutshell, you'll snare more bees with less vitriol. And we need more bees, not less. They're fading without us swatting.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 17:01

Such a rich ground for when we get tired of preening our plumage.

that is something YOU never DO appear to tire of, though. It basically seems to describe the sum total of your input here

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Oct 15, 2011 15:32

after all, any Real Scientist thrives on mystery. Such a rich ground for when we get tired of preening our plumage.

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 15:24

and still ignoring the science in favour of personal attacks I see

All serf offers are cheap little smear tactics - why anyone would expect me to respond positively to Serf and his cheap smears (or you and your cheap and childish insults) is a mystery

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Oct 15, 2011 15:12

..that comprehensively answers your question as to where s/he's 'coming from'.

Petulania, where all the Petulants originate.

Lotta Peeves there too. You get that in science too, even piety aint confined to the cloister. But it does raise the temperature(just trying to get back on topic before I'm blacked).

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 14:42

your wants are not my concern - I really couldn't care less what you want -

All you need to do to discredit me is prove me wrong - prove that what I say is wrong - prove that the Models are NOT false - that the 'Science' behind them is not false and you would show that I don't know what I am talking about - but it seems that you cannot so have instead chosen to use cheap smear tactics.

I really don't care if YOU trust me or not - no one has to take anything I say on trust - all they have to do is investigate and see if they find the reliable evidence that I am wrong

so far you either cannot do that, or have chosen to use smear tactic instead - your unwillingness to address the science and to address the subject matter itself, says a lot about you and what might motivate you, and nothing at all about me

I have no intention of dancing to your tune - your demands are laughable, and the fact that you seem to think you have a right to demand anything from anyone else says a lot about your own view of your own self-importance, but little else - no one has to do anything you say -

All you have to do to prove me wrong is deal with the science and the arguments - you instead, for some mysterious reason, deliberately choose not to do that.

Why is that I wonder?

by Serf Sat Oct 15, 2011 14:16

I just want you to clarify for us all exactly where you are coming from RS.
Otherwise it's hard to trust your posts.

So answer the questions I asked rather than sidestepping them and I might trust what you are saying a bit more. Currently you just come across as some kind of oil company shill.

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:24

In the quote you lifted from my post Serf, you were very selective in what you chose to quote - the very next line is key

"The "CO2 causes AGW" theory is completely falsified by the fact that the Models are proving to be WRONG."

and I never said anything like "we should just forget about CO2 and build more cars, planes and cement factories and party on until all the oil is gone and all the trees are burned because we can't model the consequences with any degree of certainty?" - I made no mention of "cars, planes and cement factories" and never so much as hiunted at having a party, so there really is no need to go inventing statements which you want to argue against, and attributing those statements to me - that's called a strawman argument.

If you want to argue against Capitalism - fine - do so - but do it openly
If you want to argue for Conservation & Environmentalism - fine - fine - do so - but do it openly

But if you want to ignore what the science actually shows concerning CO2 and hide your REAL agenda behind 'a concern about AGW' - NOT fine - NOT fine at all

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:00

The theory is flawed - THAT is why the Models don't work - CO2 is OBVIOUSLY not the primary climate driver the AGW crowd has claimed it is - your post proves only that you do not understand the implications of that - and again like RE you are attempting to equate Climate and Environment. I've said many times that it appears to me a lot of the AGW people have absolutely no interest in whether or not thew science is correct because they operate for political reasons and your post hints that that may apply to you too.

People here have, quite falsely (as usual), accused ME of "having an agenda", yet I'm the only one here dealing with the subject matter (the models) and the science behind that - while the people that arguing against me completely ignore all the science and what its Failure says about the theories the AGW crowd put forward.

They refuse to address the actual subject matter, preferring instead to make vague long-winded posts about what science is or is not (while ignoring all the actual science) or they prefer to change the subject to Environmentalism or make posts about dystopian Malthusian Cannibalistic imaginary futures that they conjured up out of thin air after reading one too many Sci-fi novels. Others want to talk about Ice until shown that present events are not unique, then suddenly they don't want to talk about Ice.

One thing no one here seems to want to talk about is the OBVIOUS fact that the science behind the GW theories is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

The seem to want to implement a plan of action which was devised to deal with what now looks like a non-existent problem - AGW (I'm referring to the 'A' not the 'GW'- though in fact the 'GW' may be a non-existent as well - time will tell) , when the science behind it has been completely discredited.

This seems to suggest that their motives were, all along, political and that they have no interest in whether or not the science was valid as long as there political agenda is served.

Implementing a plan of action to address CO2 when CO2 has been shown to obviously NOT be the climate driver the AGW crowd said it was, is just stupid if your aim is to 'help' the climate - what you are suggesting is actual doing something you already know WILL NOT 'help' the climate - that would be the height of stupidity.

Of course if you have an ulterior motive . . . . . it your case it appears to be 'bring down capitalism' & 'save the Environment' - well go ahead, you're free to espouse those points of view, and I fully support your right to do so-

BUT personally I refuse to sit by and just let people bastardise 'Science' to serve their own political agenda

by Serf Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:08

"AND: Your use of the 'precautionary principle' is seriously flawed in this instance.
That principle might apply if the AGW theory had some merit, but the fact that all the Models upon which it relies can't predict anything at all, shows that the theory is worthless."

So....are you saying we should just forget about CO2 and build more cars, planes and cement factories and party on until all the oil is gone and all the trees are burned because we can't model the consequences with any degree of certainty?

Surely if anything, we should be MORE careful because we don't know, rather than LESS careful?

Give me your wisdom RS. What do you think we should do? How should we act as stewards of the environment?

Should we just give capitalism it's head since it's far too complex to model the consequences correctly on a computer? I mean who knows, maybe pumping the atmosphere and oceans full of gases, radiation, pollution and all kinds of other shit might turn out to be beneficial for us all?

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 01:28

The sources for this graph were : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003.

The black line is actual temperature, way lower than 'predicted' (i.e: completely made-up).

See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C.

ACTUAL temperature data from 1998 to Nov. 2010 added later

A Graph showing how useless the "predictions" turned out to be

by RS Sat Oct 15, 2011 01:14

"Coal burning may be masking the effects of CO2-May be."

This statement is nothing but a red herring, put out by the AGW side in an attempt to distract from the FACT that their Model-based 'predictions' were proven wrong when one looked at reality.

There is no real-world empirical evidence to support this statement - none whatsoever -

All that happened is that someone decided that the only way they could explain a real-world-observed drop in temperature during a time when CO2 continued to rise, while all the Models 'predicted' a rise in temperature under those conditions, was to add in Coal-burning.
That they could not produce ANY real evidence to support this supposition is a clear indication that this is not science, but is in fact mere wishful thinking

The idea was put forward by some dedicated Climate 'Scientist' in a misguided attempt to 'Save the Theory' (of CO2) [and probably his/her Dep'ts funding] in the face of CLEAR evidence that the Models and their 'predictions' were flawed.

Rather than admit the obvious - that the CO2-Global Warming theories, and the Models built on those theories, are wrong - they decided to batten down the hatches, stick their heads even further into the sand, and continue on regardless of what the Real World showed.

by Real Scientist Sat Oct 15, 2011 00:56

"To say that anyone knows what the future is going to be is nonsense,"

whether you can actually admit it or not RE, the likes of Hansen and all the other climate Modelers ARE actually claiming that they can predict the future in terms of climate - that is what the Models are all about: to predict the future.

It's the very reason they programmed these Models in the first place - THAT is what they are all about.

that you don't seem to be able to understand this is kinda funny, but it doesn't change the fact that the Models were built in the first place in order to 'predict the future' in terms of climate.

So what is nonsense is YOUR claim that "To say that anyone knows what the future is going to be is nonsense,"

All one has to do is look at the original post that started this conversation where anyone with a pair of working eyeballs can plainly see that the CNRS scientists admit that the IPCC and the Climate Modelers are making 'predictions' of the future - why anyone would even try to deny this is a complete mystery.

The fact that these predictions are utterly useless and that they haven't managed to 'predict' jack-shit, doesn't change the FACT that they ARE making predictions .

Since we know for a FACT that they made 'predictions' then OBVIOUSLY it logically follows that they ARE claiming that they "know what the future is going to be "

That I even have to explain this is hilarious

AND: Your use of the 'precautionary principle' is seriously flawed in this instance.

That principle might apply if the AGW theory had some merit, but the fact that all the Models upon which it relies can't predict anything at all, shows that the theory is worthless.

The "CO2 causes AGW" theory is completely falsified by the fact that the Models are proving to be WRONG.

If the Models are wrong when compared to real life events , then the theory, as it currently stands, is wrong. - the people involved in creating the models are the supposed 'leading experts' on AGW - so if they cannot construct Models that reflect reality then they OBVIOUSLY do not know enough about the climate.

And if they do not know enough about the climate and how it works then they really have no business making 'predictions' about it.

Obviously there is a MAJOR flaw in their theory somewhere - and since the whole theory is built on the premise that CO2 is what is causing whatever Global Warming has previously been observed, and the Models are programmed to reflect that (by now falsified) idea, and since the Models have been proven to be not fit for the task, then the whole theory concerning CO2 is now seriously discredited - the AGW sides refusal to admit what is clearly obvious, won't change the fact that the Models are not fit for the purpose for which they were designed.

There are OBVIOUSLY other factors at play that they have not considered and have not factored into their calculations when constructing the Models.

Since the 'predictions' and reality have diverged so noticably and so rapidly shows that whatever those other factors are, they have an equal or greater influence on the Climate than CO2.

And THIS is what the sceptics have said all along.

This is basic logic. The fact that it has to be explained to you shows that you appear to have no real understanding of the theories you are so desperate to defend.

Why anyone would spend time defending a theory when they do not even appear to understand it is a complete mystery to me.

BTW: like many AGW defenders you are, deliberately IMO, confusing the terms 'Environment' and 'Climate' - they are not and cannot be used interchangeably.

When your arguments for one are found to be flawed, simply switching terms and trying to re-frame the argument just looks like you don't have any real understanding of what you are talking about. I'm not saying that that is the case- but that is what it looks like when you try to use the terms 'Environment' and 'Climate' as if they were interchangeable

by Soot not CO2 Sat Oct 15, 2011 00:01

It is now suggested that soot and not CO2 is responsible for arctic ice melt. Forest fires and volcanoes are much more destructive to the Arctic than CO2

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impure...-snow

And if you think Arctic ice melt is something new then check out this article from 1939

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/69638689?search...mits=

Between 1910 and 1939 the Arctic warmed by 16 degrees. Yet in 1974 the 'scientists' were worried about an impending ice age. Now they are trying to panic us into changing the way we live because they tell us CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming when anyone who is calm enough can read the evidence that it is not.

Don't let these looned climate fascists tell you the sky is falling. They would you know if you let them.

by Nostradamus Fri Oct 14, 2011 16:43

"To say that anyone knows what the future is going to be is nonsense"

Just look at easter Island and scale up to a planet.

Humans dominate, population expands to fill all available resources. The suns energy stored in Fossil fuels over millennia allows this process to go far beyond what the planet could otherwise sustain. Bloated population eats and shits its way through the available resources. Capitalism's wasteful excesses produce vast quantities of duplicated toxic crap we don't need and pollutes the ecosystem through all stages of production and greatly accelerates the process. Struggle for last pockets of resources, possibly nuclear exchanges. Oil becomes less and less available. Food supplies become more and more expensive. antibiotic overuse in factory food production breeds superbugs. easy accessible oil runs out. panic, riots , collapse of globalised system and social order. Huge numbers of deaths through hunger first, then disease, lack of access to vital medical stuff made elsewhere. law of jungle returns. fundamentalist religion returns with a vengeance, cannibalism becomes increasingly common. Survival of the fittest, meanest and most cunning. population stabilises at about 2 billion after much horror. Jellyfish and cockroaches and the occasional tasty dead human are now staples in our diets. Welcome to the future. Glad I won't live to see it.

So global warming is probably the least of our problems.

by Rational Ecologist. Fri Oct 14, 2011 14:03

To say that anyone knows what the future is going to be is nonsense, however, applying reasonable measures in light of a possible catastrophe is sensible.
Let's say the alarmists are wrong, this does still not stop the extinction of species, destruction of ecological communities that are most definiteky happening.
Nero fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.
We are in a juggernaut of population and consumption, what comprises the wall we are going to hit is not the point. Not much point being on a planet whose climate is livable is there's nothing left of Nature.
Coal burning may be masking the effects of CO2-May be.

by Real Scientists Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:54

All it really proves is that even the AGW side now finally is beginning to admit that the Models used to 'predict' the future (a futile excersize if ever I saw one) are hopelessly inadequate to the task.

This comes as no surprise to any sceptic out there - Sceptics have been say THAT for ages - the AGW believers out there probably only took an interest this time because the people that posted this are claiming that the models underestimate the Ice melt, and that fits nicely with the narrative that AGW believers wish to peddle.

Using the Model's output the likes of James Hansen have been making 'predictions' from the year 2000 onwards - a mere 11 years after those 'predictions' by Hansen and other AGW cheerleaders, the inadequacy of the Models is rapidly becoming obvious, even to the AGW side

Hansen 'predicted' that the temp would continue to rise, quite sharply in some of his predictions, but it hasn't. At present, and for most of the last 11 years, there is quite a marked divergence between what Hansen and his friends claimed would happen and what really has happened.

These models are what all the AGW alarmism is based on - few if any climate Scientists actually venture out into the real world to gather data - they rely on these computerised models instead - and events in the real world is now showing how unwise it is to rely on obviously flawed computer models and ignore actual real world data which contradicts the models entirely.

The notion that, using our current inadequate knowledge of how climate works as a starting point, anyone can predict climate events one hundred years into the future, is proving to be a bit of a joke at this stage.

The fact that the scientists from CNRS seem to think they can is fairly amusing though

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:52

Apologies if thats true(as its not deleted I'll accept the benefit of the doubt provided).

If you think adherence to rigorous scientific methodology, and questioning the displayed unscientific language of self-appointed and exclusionary labels is irrelevant to a disputed field of a hotly contested issue, then I'll leave you to it. Meantime, those of us making no special claims, and our children, will be effected by whatever decisions are made regarding responses to the evidence presented(and spun for a set of well documented agendas).

Note: I did not make similar accusations in what I hope was a personally neutral comment(classified as opinion, not dogma or dismissal). Bury the egos, and let the evidence decide. But the method of discussion remains relevant to the issue(ask a junior lab technician if you doubt me, RS).

To answer RS's 'why me', he's the one assuming the infallibility cloak, not a 'really scientific' starting point for the heuristic solving of complex problems.

I could be more trenchant, but I'll exercise uncustomary restraint. Religions do dogmatic belief and certainty, science relies on doubt, even when it reaches its tentative conclusions. Hence science produces progress, which certainty retards.

Good(rather than some spurious 'real' science)does not even trust the readings of its instruments, without multiple verifications, and always allows for the introduction of fresh evidence. It avoids dogma as toxic to its ends. Its ends being the pursuit of approximations to useful truths. Truth remaining an unatainable ideal for Real Fantasists with other agendas.

by wageslave Fri Oct 14, 2011 08:10

I would ask posters to please conduct this discussion in a more civilised manner.

Do not refer to other posters in a derogatory manner, whether you respect their opinion or not.

I have better things to be doing than trying to edit out abuse from posts so they don't need to be completely hidden.

[WARNING]

If this kind of thing persists then I will have little choice but to adopt a zero tolerance policy on this thread.
So please, people, Just make your points politely ok?
rgds
wageslave (mod)

by Al Blood Thu Oct 13, 2011 21:32

The summer minimum ice extent in the Arctic was lower in 2007 than this year. Doesn't this 'model' show the ice is growing not retreating?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/...s.png

by Real Scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 15:49

since LF/(PC?) was the one that originally made reference to '. . .in a scientific manner . . . '

Perhaps while you're taking a break from your scientific perusal of whatever scientific literature it is that you claim to 'scan', you might actually spend some of your precious time dealing with the subject matter of the thread, rather than attacking other people commenting here, and making snide, and hypocritical, remarks about 'open minded ness'

It certainly would make a change

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Oct 13, 2011 15:37

hmm

Most of the scientific literature I scan tends to be less definitive in its claims than Real Scientist, and less dismissive in judgemental tones of opposing opinion. I always thought an open mind on such issues was indicative of a more scientific outlook, and application of a cautionary approach indicative of a scientific recognition of the human limitations of science. The science can be no better than its practitioner, and for anyone to adopt the prenominal 'real', with no evidence of a sense of irony, strikes as arrogant and unscientific. But thats just opinion. I'm not real, just a virtual program.

by pat c Thu Oct 13, 2011 14:21

Global Warming and Climate Change is discussed on the FTMB. So far it extends to 78 pages. Some good debate.
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=951&h...ight=

by Real Scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 14:11

Addition : Again it is a FACT that you have clearly ignored the significant and unprecedented advantages which the Tankers in question had, compared to sea-going vessels in the past

You have also ignored the FACT that the Sea-Ice Satellite data only goes back to 1979, a mere 32 years.

by Real Scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 14:07

Now you are simply misrepresenting what I have said - anyone reading my previous comments can quite clearly see that I have directly addressed the Tankers you mentioned - why you insist on claiming that I have ignored it is strange indeed.

Perhaps you need to go back an re-read it, because I CLEARLY did address it.

Several times in FACT - I even mentioned a Canadian vessel that sailed those water in 1940 and 1942 - something which YOU have clearly ignored in your responses.

I also pointed out that unlike vessels in the past the Tankers in question have the undoubtedly significant benefit of modern navigation aids such as GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satellite info.

I also pointed out that without such undoubtedly significant navigation advantages it is unlikely that such a potentially hazardous journey would even been been attempted by such a large number of vessels carrying such dangerous cargo

Again it is a FACT that you have clearly ignored this significant and unprecedented

by LF Thu Oct 13, 2011 13:55

I responded with factual reports that the passages were open to oil tankers. You are not dealing with that fact.

by Real scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 13:43

Fact: Open water, ships got through.

FACT - 1940 & 1942 : Open water, RCMP vessel St Roch got through

Inconvenient for you, and your theories of [unnecessary abuse removed by moderator] Global Warming Alarmism, but FACT nonetheless

FACT - there is nothing unprecedented about those Tankers, with the unprecedented aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satellite info, getting through

Inconvenient for you, and your [unnecessary abuse removed by moderator] theories of Global Warming Alarmism, but FACT nonetheless

by Lord Franklin Thu Oct 13, 2011 13:30

"You hysterics"

I am happy to engage in rational debate but it is not possible to respond to the above in a scientific manner. The Indymedia readership are an intelligent lot, they are not impressed by abuse.

by Real scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 13:24

the ships with the unprecedented aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satelitte info got through

the point being that in the past ships did not have those navigation aids

In the past it may have been possible for ships to get though, had they also had aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satelitte info

The point being that without the undoubtedly significant navigation aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satelitte info it is unlikely that the journey by the fleet of Tankers would have even been attempted

In fact we do know that, on occasion, single ships in the past, WITHOUT the aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satelitte info got through, so, contrary to what you are claiming, there is nothing unprecedented about this.

It is only 'unprecedented' since 1979. You [unnecessary abusive term removed by moderator] avoid, like the plague, mentioning that.

We have little to no information relating to past conditions in the region, prior to 1979.

So your attempts to portray this as significant and unprecedented are at best misguided or erroneous and at worst dishonest

by Lord Franklin Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:48

The ships went through the open water. The information provided above yours is more up to date and supersedes yours.

Fact: Open water, ships got through.

by Real Scientist Thu Oct 13, 2011 00:06

Ships (with the unprecedented aid of GPS-positioning-data and real-time Arctic-Sea-Ice-monitoring Satelitte info) Passed through!!

There - fixed it for ya

by Real scientist Wed Oct 12, 2011 23:55

Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming [unnecessary abusive term removed by moderator] own chart, originally obtained from a US-Gov't website promoting this fairy-tale, , rendered in actual degrees,[unnecessary abuse removed by moderator] .

I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower, and the chart needlessly tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.

OMFG we're all going to DIE!!!111!!!!

by Real scientist Wed Oct 12, 2011 23:45

When you [abuse removed by moderator] say 'Unprecedented' it merely means 'since 1979', the year when the Satellites first began to measure the Ice

All of you [abuse removed by moderator] seem to forget that, or possibly actually were never aware if it in the first place (which wouldn't surprise me to be honest)

You [abuse removed by moderator] have in fact absolutely no basis for claiming current Ice-melt levels are in anyway unique, (other than "since 1979", a qualifier which is never used by [abuse removed by moderator]) or somehow a threat to our existence - not that that stops you from trying to spread panic though.

Statements such as

"no Arctic sea ice in summer"

are hyperbolic nonsense - or 'hyperbollix' if you like.

But what is really funny though is that you [abuse removed by moderator] over anything that confirms your already pre-existing bias (or [abuse removed by moderator], as I prefer to call it) yet complete ignore, or are unaware of, any scientific papers which contradict your pre-existing bias

In the last 20 years such claims about 'Ice free Summers' have been made many times, though curiously the date by which this is 'predicted' to occur always seems to change.

So far I have heard that statement made in relation to the year 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020, 2030 etc etc ad nauseum.

For example:

November 16, 2007 - "Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 " - http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?i...53683

12 December 2007 - "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Friday, 27 June 2008 - "Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer" - http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html

12 August 2008 - "First Arctic Ice-Free Summer Could be in 2015" - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/arctic-melting-...5.php

August 31st, 2009 - "Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013" - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009...2013/

October 15, 2009 - "Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years?" - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091015-....html

December 15, 2009 - "Gore Parrots Scientist’s Ludicrous Ice Free Arctic Claim" - http://www.infowars.com/gore-parrots-scientists-ludicro...laim/

When each predicted date approaches and the prediction is shown to be nothing but hysterical alarmist nonsense, a great palaver is convened and "hey, presto!" a new date, far off into the future, is conjured out of thin air, (or out of some pseudo-scientists rear-end, for all we know)

Of course all this hyperbollix about 'tipping points' is probably just complete nonsense - pseudo-scientific fairy-tales use by the cynical, or the ignorant and gullible, to scare [abuse removed by moderator] into submission for when the Psychopathic-Eugenicists (often, curiously, the same people that run the Psychopathic corporations and Psychopathic War-Mongering Gov'ts of the West) unveil their latest plan for mass-human slaughter, usually somewhere in the 3rd world.

But lets pretend that the silly, and ever changing, 'predictions' of the hysterics are not just a load of old Hyperbollix and a real 'Ice free Summer' is on the way.

No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice - latest science - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/no_tipping_poin..._ice/

OK, so the floating Arctic ice cap appears to be shrinking. Catastrophe if it goes on, right? As white ice reflects heat into space, past a certain point more and more heat will not be reflected, more and more ice will melt. Past such a "tipping point", the ice cap would never recover - it would vanish completely, taking with it the ice cover of Greenland which would cause huge rises in sea levels and Biblical flooding worldwide.

Not so much, according to the latest research by German climate scientists. It seems that even in the case of a completely ice-free summer with the sun shining down onto an unprotected Arctic Ocean 24 hours a day (as it does in summer time up there), the heat absorbed by the sea would not be enough to permanently remove the ice cap.

It would recover, in fact, within two years: there is no tipping point

Instead of scaring yourself silly reading the hysterical doom-and-gloom predictions of the Malthusian Global-Warming fundamentalists such as James Hansen and his ilk, you [abuse removed by moderator] horizons by reading actual scientific papers by actual scientists

Here's some actual science:
Polar cap would be back 2 yrs after an ice-free summer - (PDF) http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tiets...1.pdf

Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.

Abstract:

We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice‐free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice‐free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat.

Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence, hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the 21st century.

There is a huge mass of thick (3-5 metre) ice up against the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland coasts. There is no indication that these are significantly declining or threatened.

It is time for people to stop being [abuse removed by moderator] about this.

by Lord Franklin Wed Oct 12, 2011 21:58

Yes they did!

Arctic sea routes open as ice melts

... The two lanes have been used by a number of small craft several times in recent years. But the Northern Sea Route has been free enough of ice this month for a succession of tankers carrying natural gas condensate from the northern port of Murmansk to sail along the Siberian coast en route for Thailand.

"They're often open at the same time in the sense that with some ingenuity you can get through them," observed Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice expert from the University of Cambridge. "But this time they've really been open, with a proper Suez-size tanker going through the Northern Sea Route with a full cargo - that's a real step forward," he told BBC News. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14670433

by Billy Bong Wed Oct 12, 2011 18:17

The Norwest Passage has been opening and closing for a long time.

http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm

Did any ships pass through it this year? No! So it's not as open now as it was 70 years ago! Mmmm?

This is all very similar to the IPCC story about all the Himalayan glaciers being melted away by 2035 when in fact they are reported to be growing. All I'm wondering is are these climate scientists incompetent or just plain lying?

http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shri....html

by Slow Geological Timer. Sun Oct 09, 2011 19:16

It is happening.
If you exaggerate the time scale nobody will believe you.

by JPL/NASA Sun Oct 09, 2011 18:30

More on Arctic sea ice loss. Video at link shows Arctic sea ice from March 7, 2011, to Sept. 9, 2011.

Last month the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the summertime sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and shrinks each summer as the sun rises higher in the northern sky. Each year the Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent in September. It hit a record low in 2007.

NASA satellite data reveals how this year's minimum sea ice extent, reached on Sept. 9 as depicted here, declined to a level far smaller than the 30-year average (in yellow) and opened up Northwest Passage shipping lanes (in red). Credit: NASA Goddard's S