Its all Doom and Gloom, the World is Coming to Its' End .........................
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
............................................ Oh wait, no it isn't.
Damn! There goes our funding.
Skiing
By JonBPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
Right, so do I book my skiing holiday in Europe - cheaper, less reliable snow, or the US - speak English (With a close enough approximation), reliable snow, more expensive?
Is the answer...
By TawakalnaPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
..that global warming is a big phat phaicque?
I don't actually think that, but I am starting to wonder if maybe we've all been had.
This article should be dismantled, ground into a fine dust and shredded
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:15 GMT
It obviously doesn't fit in with the MMGW scare stuff and the heretic who wrote it should be nailed to a wall somewhere.
Facts..we don't need no stinkin facts to hail the great religion of MMGW.
Phew -close one that but I think nobody will notice.
Nothing to see here...these are not the graphs your looking for...move along...
Great stuff guys. the sooner these MMGW fruit loops are discredited the better.
Anonymous -cos I don't want the eco inquisition grabbing me with their comfy chair etc...
Soot
By Graham DawsonPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:20 GMT
Simpel really. The northern hemisphere is highly industrialised so, on top of the usual reasons for ice melt (currents, vulcanism, wind direction and so on) there's also the addition of large amounts of soot, mostly from China and eastern europe. The soot carries up to the arctic, settles on the ice, lowers its albedo and... melting! Oddly enough this was one of the "fixes" posited for the media-driven global cooling scare in the 70s. It doesn't have the hugest effect but it is a contributing factor, unlike the whole CO2 thing.
The antarctic, of course, doesn't get that soot because the southern hemisphere is relatively free of the stuff, so it'll just keep right on growing.
Calm down people!
By dervheidPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:24 GMT
Let's not get into a frenzy of "So, there's more ice than there was, rather than less, which isn't what YOU predicted, you doom-mongering, tree-hugging AGW enviro-nazis"
Let's make that attack in a calm, yet derisive manner.
Much more dignified.
Bugger that!
More ICE!
get it RIGHT up ye!
Throw another shovel-full of coal on that fire!
In that case
By Kirstian KPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:25 GMT
Im off out to buy myself a cheap 4x4......
Parris coz im sure she knows what to do with an ice cube to melt it....! Oh yeah....!
Lets see how they spin this.
By ooFiePosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:33 GMT
or even if they meantion it in any real depth - which I doubt.
Because people then may start to realise that climate change has been blown all out of proportion like the war on terror which is constantly push down our necks and has really achieved nothing than make our lifes more expensive and more miserable, not unlike peak oil thoery.
*\. Putting mine on as its a bit cold round here with this global warming.
There's something rotten north of Denmark
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:36 GMT
Is that Sweeden, Norway or Finland? Perhaps they mean north of the Danish teritory of Greenland? it is a seperate country, just part of the Danish Empire..
Proper reporting?
By MarkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:36 GMT
Surely a proper journalist would be publishing a report where the people who posted the data in question have a chance to respond? You keep doing this with this climate stuff - do some proper work please and present a full report instead of some shoddy speculation.
Just waiting for them to come up with with something else to keep their jobs
By youvegot tobejokingPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:39 GMT
*Meeting of head muppets at the Al Gore Centre For Dodgy Climate Change Crap Science Institute Of Failure*
/Scientesticle1
Soooo, Antartic and Artic are not melting, polar bears are not swimming for miles and we are not all drowning in meltwater...
/Scientesticle2
Well, we could bamboozle them with some stupid idea that the global warming has some kind of malicious intelligence and it got bored with the Artic and is now global warming the Sahara instead
/Scientesticle1
Yeah yeah, and we could say that all the shit weather people in northern europe are getting is caused by Global Warming's little red headed step brother, Regional Raining.
/Scientesticle2
OK, you get on the phone to Al, I'll start on the story for the new movie...
/Scientesticle1
And remember, do NOT call it "a convenient lie"
Global Warming?
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:43 GMT
"The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on "global warming""
You've got it all wrong... global warming was the phraseology used last time the gubermint used the environment as a scare tactic to increase taxes... this time they realised that if they used the same wording, people would twig that it didn't make a jot of difference last time. This time they call it "climate change". (you could also argue that people realised that things were getting colder - not condusive to global *warming*)
The earth is always going through climate change - thus we know of things such as ice ages, and the fact that the romans grew grapes for wine in scotland. I suspect it cycles roughly every 11 years (in line with sunspots), and sometimes it goes further than others.
In the words of a great author: "DON'T PANIC" (in large friendly letters)
We like more ice
By Tim SpencePosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:44 GMT
It's good for our summer Pimms.
Alarming graph
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:44 GMT
That alarming graph is a lesson in hiding data to fit your needs. The "1979-2000 average" line is very suspect. First of all, where's the data for 2001-2006? Secondly, what the range of values, rather than just an average (mean I guess)?
Scamps -> Yahoo: Stu [-]
Funny you should ask
By ChrisPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:50 GMT
You see, the polar ice WOULD be retreating, except the measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions are already having an effect.
This shows that WE WERE RIGHT.
Of course, there's a long way to go yet, after all, we want to keep our new industry alive, our living depends on it.
Meantime we'll take action to prevent the reckless release of factual data to the great unwashed so they can't find out what's really happening in future.
Probably by having the data restricted in case it's used by terrorists.
Remember: We are RIGHT. We know best
Paris? Because SHE knows when she's being fucked over.
Not Based on Solid Science
By Solomon GrundyPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:51 GMT
A lot like this article. There's a bit of media bashing in the article - when that kind of thing comes from a member of the media, those claims loose a lot of their value. Maybe Mr. Goddard should be affiliated with a university of some sort. There's a lot to be learned about how to craft a solid response to a debatable point.
Cut that out!
By Jonathan RichardsPosted Friday 15th August 2008 10:53 GMT
>Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
Oi, that's Math Abuse. You can't take ratios of ratios like that; fourth form error, sir.
I see the author has "no current university affiliation".
There's a surprise, then.
Global Warming is a Scam
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:02 GMT
After all, once people realised that religion was just a tool to control the masses, the Powers-That-Be had no choice but to use (pseudo)science instead!
Mine's the one with the ice-pick in the pocket.
ice melting=larger land mass?
By MartPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:14 GMT
Surely if the ice is melting slowly it would increase in land mass as the top of the ice slowly breaks away and slides down to sit next to the previous ice's base?
Has anyone measured for this? whether the height of ice is steady or dropping?
why the confusion
By GaryPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:15 GMT
Why is there so much confusion?
Why are so many scientists saying that the ice caps are melting, and yet you seem to present some proof to the contrary? How hard is it to measure this stuff? I would just like to know if the caps are melting or not.
One small point to make. The pictures don't show the depth of the ice (and thereby the total volume) at the various times, only the surface area. Is there any reliable info on this?
Now that Paris has solved the energy crisis, maybe she can apply her ample brains to the "Great Global Warming Debate".
So the end of the world in not nigh !
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:17 GMT
Well there is a surprise, bloody weather forecasters have enough trouble trying to tell if it is going to rain tomorrow let alone predicting when we are all going to get burnt to a cinder.
Now what's the next armageddon story, mine's a pint of carling please !
Why it - 'cause the media is full of *&IT
Good question...
By goggyturkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:17 GMT
Now, instead of just *asking* these questions, which are strongly suggestive of bias, would it be possible to actually get them to account for their methodology? Their chart states that their criteria is 15% sea ice by area, which suggests that they don't count pixels (although doing this could be a useful sense check). Does anyone have any idea why this is?
While you're at it, get James Hansen on to explain why his temperature data seems to be skewed up the way (if he'll speak to you). I'd love for you guys to at least try and get some response from them, even if it is 'fuck off'.
I've found these articles and the related discussions pretty interesting and it would be good to hear from the horse's mouths how these things are arrived at.
Well... you can find claims any way you like
By ToidiPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:18 GMT
If you check http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html it seems that the ice extent is not too large. All depends on the source... and the information you believe is correct. The thing is that all those graphs are valid and constructed in slightly different ways... Differences also arise basing on different software used to decide 'which colour' the pixel should be and the automatic interpretation of 'ice free' is sometimes a bit difficult too. All in all leads to making comments like you did, substantiated by some evidence, fairly easy. But IMHO one needs to be very careful with generalisations... and claims that this source of information is right and the other is wrong.
Finally, the area of ice - independent on the source of information you are using - is much smaller than it used to be, on average, in 80's and 90's. But true, it is unlikely that whole ice will melt this year and I am happy about that. Those claims were made earlier this year when the ice area seemed to be below those in 2007...
Science?
By Kevin CrispPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:22 GMT
"The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on "global warming" makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science"
Is any of the global warming crap based on science? Solid or otherwise?
oooh all scientific like
By jamesPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:28 GMT
im sure you took into consideration that warmer temperatures will result in thinner ice, so that while the coverage could be the same (or even greater) it will be a lot thinner meaning LESS ice?
knowing that you are a respectalbe journo in a top notch publication and would never slap a half finished story on the desk to get out early on a high note of hysteria i will assume that it was an accidental omission and in no way brought about by a desire to sex it up.
That's the trouble
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:31 GMT
with messing about with the data and statistics to reinforce a story you know is crap but can't tell anyone, you soon forget what you did to the real data.
mmmmm ...... When it's proven that Global Warming is nothing more than a phase in the Earths' natural heating/cooling cycle, what are these doomsaying jokers going to do? They'll be the laughing stock of the entire planet, not just the scientific community. Poor sods will be on trial for crimes against humanity.
Remember kids, if you don't lie, you won't have remember anything.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
By MarkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:32 GMT
NH sea ice area of 4.001 Mkm^2, compared to the 2005 minimum of 4.01 Mkm^2.
And we haven't got to september yet.
Sleep in bed easier for now
By Rob FarnellPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:42 GMT
Thank you El Reg for the well reported difference in the polar ice coverage. When you are talking about such a large system such as the Earth's climate with a billion variables, I can't see why people allow themselves to knee-jerk unnecessarily.
1000 years ago it was warm enough in York to have flourishing vineyards (more here: http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/spotlight-english-wine.asp ). I think evidence like this with something so colossal as the climate you have to try and look back more than 30-40 years to get any idea of what may come and the natural cycles of the earth's temperature.
Some talk over area, some over mass...
By OlePosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:44 GMT
You seem to be comparing apples and bananas.
The positive numbers are talking of the area covered with ice, not the mass of it like the Norwegian numbers.
A 1000 sqkm plate of ice 10 meter thick equals 330 sqkm ice 30 meters thick in mass, while only being 1/3 in apparent size.
Ole
Wow
By CampbellPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:54 GMT
Why do I have this suspicion that there's going to be a very large, very damaging, very messy civilisation changing fraud case coming up pretty soon?
My guess is that the trial will start on 21st December 2012.
The first paragraph says it all
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 11:57 GMT
So we had reports that the north pole was going to be "ice free for the first time" did we? Funny that, because it's been ice free several times. But I suppose a headline like "the north pole will be ice free for the umpteenth time" doesn't grab the attention.
The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that scientists, or at least their press offices, are starting to follow the lead of politicians in not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
When a politician tells you that facts are stupid things then you shrug. When a scientist does the same it's probably time to panic.
@Kevin Crisp
By MarkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:12 GMT
"Is any of the global warming crap based on science? Solid or otherwise?"
Yes.
CO2 is transparent to visible and opaque to IR. The sun is 6000K so peak output is in the visible range. The earth is merely warm at about 280K so peak output is in the IR range.
Therefore energy coming in is finding it easy. Energy getting out is finding it hard.
Or do you have trouble working out how your thermos knows whether its contents are hot or cold and so know how to keep them that way?
Article valid but not whole truth...
By richard alexanderPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:17 GMT
The camp citing imminent meltdown is similar to the camp saying it's business as usual...there's not yet signs of meltdown...we haven't got enough data yet, it will take years, maybe decades. But there are some trends:
"Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3.6 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small."
STOP PRESS: red herrings found at the north pole
By nPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:32 GMT
What has the "war on terra" and the "global warming" hype got in common?
One increases the price of oil, the other justifies it.
Colour-blind software?
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:34 GMT
I'm afraid I can't quite understand why it seems so difficult to decide whether an image pixel shows ice or not.
If its ice, its, well, white.
Water isn't usually white...or even close to it.
So why is it so hard to measure ice cover?
Come to that, they could send a plane over to LOOK at the coverage..or wouldn't this method give the results they want to find?
No surprise
By Alexis VallancePosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:39 GMT
The media are still loving the global warming / claimate change / carbon footprint rubbish.
I heard the latest government radio ad yesterday, with the infuriating line "How many time have you heard 'funny weather we're having lately' down at the pub?"
Aaarggh.
IIRC
By Ed BlackshawPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:44 GMT
From the New Scientist article I was reading last week, the THICKNESS of the arctic ice at the north pole this year was something like 25% of what it was a few years ago. The problem here is that you are discussing the AREA of arctic ice, whereas the important thing is VOLUME. Also, I would imagine it is quite conceivable that if ice sheets are breaking up, it would look, from space, like the total ice area were increasing, since there would be a certain amount of 'spreading out' of the ice sheet going on. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe in the large amount of research being done, where accurate mneasurements are being taken, actually on the ice, by qualified scientists, than some observations taken from space, on a scale which is most likely around the kilometre mark.
So, to summarise, 'YOU AM FAIL'.
Better proof
By Wade BurchettePosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:47 GMT
I like the Cryosphere Today site, because they are strong global warming advocates and yet they don't mind showing data that goes against their beliefs. So, if they don't hide data that disagree with their beliefs, they can be trusted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Their data still shows arctic sea ice above last year. And the antarctic sea ice is above last year's record high too.
But there is still no mention of the volcanic activity under the arctic and antarctic. What is amazing is the antarctic is reaching record highs with a volcano under a part of it. Part of the antarctic ice broke off, and the media said it was global warming all the while ignore that the antarctic is above normal for sea ice coverage.
The true secret of "global warming"...
By Ian Michael GumbyPosted Friday 15th August 2008 12:52 GMT
You want a good conspiracy?
Try this one on for size...
Al "I invented the internet" Gore gets a bunch of his rich buddies together and then they decide to invest heavily in to alternative energy projects. They figure that if they can get enough panic or fear started, then others will look to alternatives on CO2 production. Also he's working with his banker/trader buddies to cook up a carbon trading schemes so that companies that can not afford to make the radical shift in cleaning up their act can then ease the pain by trading carbon credits. (Also allowing companies that don't produce carbon byproducts can then make some extra cash.) (And the traders make money in an artificial economy)
So what you have is a group of rich people making more money from a public which gets their facts from Wikipedia.
Now is it a good idea to clean up our act? Sure. Will we act unless driven in to a hysterical panic? Probably not. So while these unnamed "gore-ites" get rich, they can ease their conscious that they are doing good by being environmental con-men.
T-Boon Pickens an oil man just looking to cash in on his huge investments in wind power productions.
Oops! I've said too much!
Bored of this
By And CloverPosted Friday 15th August 2008 13:08 GMT
What is this constant drip-drip-drip of one-sided denialist insinuation from 'Steven Goddard' doing on The Reg?
The climate change flame war is all very entertaining and that, but where's the tech angle?
@Ian Michael Gumby
By John BaylyPosted Friday 15th August 2008 13:54 GMT
As much as I think Gore is a muppet when it comes to AGW, I tend to stop reading when somebody brings out the "I invented the Internet" thing. He never said that, and it's completely counter productive when you use it against him; you just sound clueless.
Arctic ice vs. Arctic SEA Ice
By Laurent SomersPosted Friday 15th August 2008 14:11 GMT
Not quite the same thing, and the article seems to confuse the two.
When is this article going to be fixed?
By Duncan HothersallPosted Friday 15th August 2008 14:14 GMT
The massive flaw in the argument presented here - that the thickness of the ice hasn't been considered - was notified here more than 4 hours ago. I realise it's Friday afternoon and all that, but shouldn't you either fix the article or add a disclaimer or something? Or is this just meant to be a load of old Jeremy Clarkson style bollocks to give people something to get worked up over for the weekend?
Agreed, very boring
By Jolyon RalphPosted Friday 15th August 2008 14:18 GMT
Please get back to stories about Webwank 2.0 and the iPhone, and leave the pseudoscience to experts in the field, such as the Daily Mail.
Jolyon
I can't quite understand this...
By Dodgy GeezerPosted Friday 15th August 2008 14:45 GMT
Surely the way science works is that:
1 - people gather data
2 - they write a paper describing their conclusions
3 - they publish the paper AND THE DATA, for other people to examine
4 - if no one can find a hole in anything, the conclusions are accepted
So, if we have an issue with ice coverage, where is the raw data, and any information on corrections applied, so that we can all examine it and determine if anyone is wrong?
Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'. Something like this: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
And don't call me Shirley...
the work of good mr goddard
By Chip MeffordPosted Friday 15th August 2008 14:59 GMT
By Steven GoddardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 15:04 GMT
Arctic ice extent (as measured from the UIUC maps) is now 45% larger than the same date in 2007. NSIDC is showing the delta at about 15%.
You can see the increase here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-MnbOGfLE
What a heap of shit!
By Jolyon RalphPosted Friday 15th August 2008 15:36 GMT
Don't bother with the YouTube video that Stephen Goddard posted, I wasted a full 8 seconds of my life watching one frame fading into another.
And it STILL doesn't answer the question about the VOLUME of ice.
Jolyon
Complexity and Cryosat
By wookiee2008Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:40 GMT
...and it's not just the thickness of the ice (which is incidently hard enough to measure) but it's also the density that matters. There are different types of ice depending on how long it's been there for, along with a number of other parameters.
It's such a shame that the Cryosat satellite exploded and got a little bit too close to the action by landing in the sea:
I think it's a really interesting mission and would help answer some of the questions surrounding the properties of the polar regions.
@Dodgy Geezer
By KlausPosted Friday 15th August 2008 15:52 GMT
"Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'."
Speaking as a scientist who publishes papers, I can say that this statement is complete BS. If I ever tried to publish a paper without including the data, it'd be deep-sixed by the journal editors before even making it to the peer review stage.
I'm not sure if the commenter understands how science publications work...
Only 10% more ice?
By Anonymous JohnPosted Friday 15th August 2008 15:59 GMT
Shouldn't there be less if there is such a thing as MMGW?
Mine's the white furry one.
Re Chip Mefford
By Steven GoddardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:12 GMT
After writing my last article, I made the mistake of discussing it on "realclimate." It was a mistake because Gavin censored and selectively edited a number of my responses - eventually blocking them completely. They were all polite, on topic and directly answering the questions asked of me.
"realclimate" does not offer a level playing field, and I won't make the same mistake again.
My methodology is quite simple and standard, and uses published maps from NSIDC. Either the maps or wrong, or the graphs are wrong. Which one is it? The maps appear to accurately represent satellite photos from NASA, so my conclusion is that the fault lies with the graphs.
So the next ice age has started then?
By ianPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:13 GMT
We'll be ice skating on the Thames next, and immigrants will be walking across the ice from France.
Time to sell the vineyards in the English wine-making terroir, then I'm off to open a ski resort in Wales..
@Toidi
By RRRoamerPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:20 GMT
Uhm. No. "All the graphs are valid" is complete bull shit. Some of them MAY be doing it correct and actually getting a number that is CLOSE to the truth (in case you have been sucked up in the AGW debate for too long, the "truth" is actually a way of saying what is actually going on versus what people think (or more often) HOPE is going on).
Those are the valid graphs.
All the other that are far off into "left field" (baseball term), are NOT valid! The results they are publishing are NOT close to the "truth", therefore they CAN'T be valid. Remember the old programing axiom: Garbage in, garbage out.
news
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:43 GMT
when was the last time you saw a newspaper say - "don't worry it will all be fine"
If it's not terrifyingly horendous whats the point in writing about it.
@klaus
By MarkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:49 GMT
no, dodgy geezer, like so many denialists with no training, only believes in things that make them right. So they make up the actions of the people they oppose so that they can "prove" to themselves that their opponent is bad and therefore they are good.
I'm as confused as Paris...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:50 GMT
...when you ask her a maths question
I used to be a true believer. That was strengthened by the flaky and shady nature of the opposition - paid shills from the various industries that would see a loss of revenue were it all true.
After a while I came to the conclusion that I didn't care any more, it's not like the yanks, Chinese and Indians are going to be changing their ways, right?
And now there seems to be a variety of evidence saying either it's not happening, or cutting back is working (not that we ever cut back, just scaled back the increases), or that something else we're doing might be mitigating the effects.
You know what? Fuck it. I'll drive a big car and pay the inevitable taxes and try my best to ignore it all.
@Mark
By Kevin CrispPosted Friday 15th August 2008 16:59 GMT
"Therefore energy coming in is finding it easy. Energy getting out is finding it hard."
Why isn't the temperature of the Earth rising significantly then?
"Or do you have trouble working out how your thermos knows whether its contents are hot or cold and so know how to keep them that way?"
I always presumed it was the thermos fairy....
One image
By GlobalthinkerPosted Friday 15th August 2008 17:08 GMT
There is no mention of what data the NSIDC used. But I would presume they did a more in depth analysis than to count the number of pixels.
First of all pixels are two dimensional.
If the ice in areas that has been white all along actually shrunk obviously the total amount of ice could be lower even though the ice field is wider.
You can't simply count pixels and take that as a proof that global climate change is a scam to raise taxes. What an absurd idea.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is stable and does not break down. We add more and more of it to the atmosphere every year. Without greenhouse gasses the average temperature on Earth would be a chilly 14 C (57 F) lower than it is. No one disputes this.
Can someone please tell me how the gasses can raise the temperature by 14 C so we get a nice and comfy climate but do nothing if we keep adding more of the same gasses. It just doesn't make any sense.
Just Thinkin'
By GregPosted Friday 15th August 2008 17:11 GMT
I'm taking all this both with an open mind and a grain of salt, suppose I had a block of ice 100m thick, and it melted at 1m per year, at end of year one we all agree it will have decreased by 1%, now 98 years later we have only 2m left, from one perspective it has been melting at nice none alarming constant 1m per year, from another perspective last year it melted by 33%, this year it is going to melt by 50%, and next year 100%, obviously, the melting is accelerating at an alarming geometric rate!! Isn't Math fun!
Now, I read in comments that according to "New Scientist" the thickness is something like 25% what it was a few years ago, but actually to quote New Scientist it said "Earlier studies had already shown that the extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level in 2007, 23 per cent below the previous minimum set in 2005." There is a huge difference in 25% and 77%(23%less). it seems to me that if 1/4 the area had melted completely (100%), and the other 3/4 didn't melt at all, by using a little math magic you could justify saying the average was 25%. now obviously this isn't what has happened, just illustrating a point, like with the "Block of ice" , so, can we say the new ice 2008 indicates a thickening of 100%??
Here is what I think: new ice is thicker than no ice, that thickening over established ice will be slow because it will rely less on freezing and more on precipitation. with the decrease in average global temperature 2007-2008 the ice will continue to spread short term limited mainly by variations in the North Atlantic currents. that long term the northwest passage will sometimes be open and sometimes it will be frozen, it's happened before, will happen again.
It's called climate change, it's been with us 4.5 billion years, and will be until our sun expires.
Those eco cars around London
By AronPosted Friday 15th August 2008 17:59 GMT
Can we start vandalising those Eastern bloc inspired ecomobiles around London now?
@ And Clover
By MichaelPosted Friday 15th August 2008 18:22 GMT
>>>where's the tech angle?
Did you miss the part where they used sattelites and counted pixels??
What an awful article.
By GarthPosted Friday 15th August 2008 18:46 GMT
I mean really? Counting pixels? As has been mentioned already several times, you couldn't conceive the the real world has more than 2 dimensions? Just terrible. Should be ashamed of yourself.
The comments section is a wonderful example of cognitive bias, though, bravo.
Are the icecaps melting
By MarcoPosted Friday 15th August 2008 18:56 GMT
I vividly remember Mr. Goddard's piece on the icecaps that linked to an article in the Independent. If you actually went over and read it, which Mr. Goddard most likely didn't take into account you might do, you would have found that the article simply states that there was a greater than 50% chance of an open ocean this year at the pole, and it possibly being reachable by surface craft.
Nobody quoted in the Independent article said the pole would be ice free, as Mr. Goddard claimed. Now he goes and debunks the prediction he himself falsely constructed, linking to the very article he made it up in.
That is Mr. Goddard's understanding of science to you.
Medium term cooling, long term warming.
By WatashiPosted Friday 15th August 2008 19:17 GMT
Interesting article in New Scientist - apparently (so it is claimed) medium term patterns in global climate change depend on (currently poorly understood) cycles in ocean temperatures rather than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This effect has led to periods in the last couple of centuries where global atmospheric temperatures have temporarily stabilised, or even decreased. However, as soon as the cooling part of the oceanic cycle ended, global temperatures increased one again, broadly following the long term trend predicted by global warming theories.
This ocean cooling theory goes a long way to explaining how it was that despite a two century long period of CO2 addition to the atmosphere we briefly feared (up to the 70s) the onset of a mini-ice age. This was, it seems, an illusion created by a medium term fluctuation stamped onto a longer trend of warming. It looks like we can expect another period of oceanic cooling in the very near future, followed by another extended period of warming picking up roughly where we left off.
It would be rather naive to expect global temperature changes to always follow nice, smooth, predictable graph slopes. Rather than see this as the evidence the conspiracy theorists have been looking for, we should treat it as an opportunity to accelerate the development of renewables in the hope of stiffling the next global warming phase before it hits us.
this article is a complete waste of time
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 19:31 GMT
If you can't figure out why then you deserve to have your government lead you by the nose.
@Kevin Crisp
By MarkPosted Friday 15th August 2008 19:57 GMT
"Why isn't the temperature of the Earth rising significantly then?"
It has.
WTF
By asdfPosted Friday 15th August 2008 19:59 GMT
How is this IT related? Why the hell is El Reg spouting right wing blog quality climate "science"? Does an editor own Exxon stock or something?
Not all pixels are equal...
By Douglas LowePosted Friday 15th August 2008 20:01 GMT
Rather than just counting the number of pixels, you should also take note of the colour of the pixel. They are colour coded to indicate the percentage cover of ice - red = 60%, purple = 80%. A lot of the new ice this year seems to be at a lower coverage than last years ice cap. If you took that difference into account you would probably find that your estimation is much closer to the NSIDC calculation.
Not another one...
By Kieron WilkinsonPosted Friday 15th August 2008 20:23 GMT
Quit with the global warming articles already. I come here for tech, not polemics.
Excuses, excuses!!
By HerbyPosted Friday 15th August 2008 20:30 GMT
Everyone has them.
Please predict the weather tomorrow. What is the ratio of correctness? If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting "climate change", or whatever they call it today?
Maybe they were all using floating point from original Pentiums, who knows?
Inconvenient Truth
By JoshPosted Friday 15th August 2008 21:51 GMT
Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore...
Logical fallacies and inaccurate claims
By JeffPosted Friday 15th August 2008 22:16 GMT
This column seemed to me to be pretty pointless, other than as an example of how to argue by obsfucation and logical fallacy.
Mr. Goddard slams something called the National Snow and Ice Data Center
pretty heavily, but there is no indication that he contacted that organization to get their side of the story. Why? Isn't that a standard journalistic practice?
What was the motivation for making an issue over whether this year or last year had the smaller amount of sea ice? 2008 will at the worst have the second smallest amount of sea ice in the "satellite era". Drawing generalizations based on 2 years of data is an example of a Hasty Conclusion fallacy. If you go to the University of Illinois site that Mr. Goddard cited, you will find a graph of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area anomalies since 1978. There is a distinct trend towards smaller areas. Mr. Goddard chose to ignore these data which contradicted his position. This is a good example of Confirmation Bias.
Marco pointed out a classic Strawman Argument. Nobody has claimed that the
North Pole will be definitely be ice-free this year.
Mr. Goddard was also comparing apples to oranges with his discussion of NSIDC's statistics. According to their website, NSIDC tracks sea ice EXTENT,
not sea ice AREA. These 2 quantities are not the same. This might be another
example of a strawman argument, or perhaps Mr. Goddard just doesn't understand the difference. Regardless, Mr. Goddard attempts to calculate sea ice area by merely counting the number of pixels that have a greater than 0 percent sea ice concentration. Therefore, he is effectively assuming that pixels either have 0 percent concentration or a 100 percent concentration. Did Mr. Goddard not understand what the colorbars on the images mean?
The real conspiracy (yet again)
By Chris FoxPosted Friday 15th August 2008 22:22 GMT
From Greg: "I'm taking all this both with an open mind and a grain of salt, suppose I had a block of ice 100m thick, and it melted at 1m per year, at end of year one we all agree it will have decreased by 1%"
Anyone with a normal understanding of reality might agree, but if one were to follow the oh-so-well-informed climate change denial analysis in the article, it won't have melted at all, even if it is down to 0.1m thick.
Some people suspect there is a self-serving narrow-minded agenda to push a particular selective interpretation of the data for financial reward; they are right, the journalism of The Register is a first-class example.
As has been said before, if The Register cannot get the science right, perhaps it could at least attempt to get the journalism right, and ask others to explain their interpretation of the data.
I expect the reason that it does not is that The Register would find this too embarrassing. Its climate-change-denial agenda would collapse like the house of cards that it is. It would also undermine its attempts to push up its visitor numbers with these troll pseudo-science articles that do little more than preach to a depressingly large gallery of fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02 and the notions of steady state conditions, or the nature of peer-reviewed science.
These articles are undermining the credibility of this outfit. All we need now is a steady drip of articles preaching intelligent design and arguing that evolution is a conspiracy made up by a bunch of cynical self-serving scientists. No doubt just as many readers would agree and cheer you on.
I dare you. Go on, you know you want to.
@ Mark
By Greg FlemingPosted Friday 15th August 2008 22:49 GMT
"It has."
No, it HASN'T.
You keep saying this, and it simply isn't true.
The Earth is almost a full degree cooler than it was twenty years ago and a half degree cooler than it was in the late 90's. In fact it appears to be cooling at an exponential rate.
If the trend continues then in about 2100 things will be decidedly chilly indeed.
Goddard's data disproves his own assertions.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Friday 15th August 2008 22:50 GMT
"Why isn't NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?"- Goddard.
Perhaps it's because there has been no increase in the polar ice cover over the last 30 years. Even Goddard's own graphic shows that to be the case. This years ice cover is well below the seasonal average, although higher than last year..
It's laughable that Goddard doesn't know how to interetpret a simple graphic that he uses as his own reference.
Dumber than Dumb.
The Emperor's New Clothes
By Steven GoddardPosted Friday 15th August 2008 23:22 GMT
Interesting how some here are having difficulty seeing the obvious.
Sea ice extent (as defined by NSIDC) is a measurement of area, not volume. Counting pixels is a standard technique for doing digital numerical integration of map areas.
The maps and graphs should correspond 1:1, but they don't. Looking at NASA satellite imagery, the maps appear to be accurate - the logical conclusion being that the problem lies with the graphs.
As far as The Independent story went, I quoted exactly what the article said at the time. They later removed the text in question, as author Steve Connor wrote up on "realclimate." When a newspaper changes the text of an online article, they really should put a note there. (The BBC had some serious problems with that earlier this year when they kept modifying the text of an article which originally implied that global warming had stopped.)
Regardless, you can see the same text in many other articles, including the National Geographic article quoted in this piece.
When experts make comments about the North Pole being "ice free," it has the desired effect - thousands of newspapers quote it. Qualifying it with 50/50 odds is implausible deniability. If they don't have confidence in their predictions, they shouldn't say anything to the press.
I recommend
By Martin LynePosted Friday 15th August 2008 23:23 GMT
You go buy this weeks New Scientist if you want a real consumable but scientific article. Global warming is neither IT or Technology really.. funny to see how many people just love to be right though, and being stupid enough to think that even if, let's say, global warming was wrong, that it's then fine to justify continued use of fossil fuels.
Have exhaust pumped onto your face for a few seconds and then imagine your children living in a world where, daily, more and more vehicles are introduced to add to that gaseous output. Sometimes looking for a clean alternative is good *just for that reason* - doesn't need to be economically or doom-avertingly justified.
Remember that CO2 isn't the only, or even the worst greenhouse gas. And the government don't actually get any control over us for making us believe it, it's been a big pain in their arses, of course people will profit - but compared to Big Oil™..?
Weather isn't climate herby.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Friday 15th August 2008 23:29 GMT
"Please predict the weather tomorrow. What is the ratio of correctness? If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting "climate change", or whatever they call it today?" - herby
Herby doesn't know the difference between climate and weather. Silly boy.
Please predict the height of the next person to walk into a room. If the "models" don't get this right, what business do they have predicting the average height of the people who will walk in the room 10 years from now?
@Herby
By Steen HivePosted Friday 15th August 2008 23:51 GMT
Aw for god's sake - weather and climate are not the same thing!
@ Mark
By scotchbonnetPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 00:43 GMT
Keep plugging away at all those nasty non-believers, my friend. You'll beat them into submission yet.
Not to ignore the obvious, but since the prediction was for an "ice-free Arctic", and there's somewhere between 10% and 30% more ice than last year, wouldn't that mean that the prediction was a complete bust, regardless of the amount of ice growth?
Concerted attack?
By Alan WilkinsonPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:48 GMT
A concerted attack of uninformed twaddle on Steve here.
If you don't want to read about global warming - or the lack of it - just go somewhere else and stop wasting our time with inane comments.
NSIDC is itself talking about extent of sea ice, not volume or thickness. All those criticising Steve for doing the same should stand up and apologise - fat chance I expect: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Short of dispersion as pack ice rather than as a solid crust it seems a very remote possibility that volume will not increase with area. And an even more remote change that the AGW industry would not be trumpeting the fact.
Oops
By Alan WilkinsonPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:49 GMT
Sorry, typo - "change" should be "chance" in last para.
Now the Seals are endangered
By JimPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:53 GMT
Due to the growing polar arctic ice, polar bear cubs are no longer getting the annual Darwin Award Drowning contest. Polar bear population is exploding . . . consequently seals are endangered. It's all your fault . . . somehow!
Maybe this could have some effect?
By jimpeelPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:57 GMT
New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
[more]
sneaky global warming
By the enemies of godPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 04:02 GMT
i think the answer to this discrepancy becomes clear when you factor in the measurements i've been taking
for instance, in my back yard i'm sure i've been sweating at least 50 per cent more this year than last
so not only is global warming increasing, you see, but it's being very sneaky. hearing that we're on to it, it has changed its tactics and is now targeting much more specific locales for its devious assaults, like the area immediately around my house
clearly, then, we must change our strategy in combating this global warming fiend:
Al, please send me an extra air conditioner ....
yours truly, etc, "i'm hot" in texas
Where does the 30 percent come from
By JeffPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 04:34 GMT
I downloaded data from NSIDC's "Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data” data set for Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 and counted the number of grid cells with sea ice concentrations of 15 percent or greater (the criteria that NSIDC uses). There was a 14 percent difference between the 2. And, as I pointed out in my previous post (if it ever shows up here), NSIDC is reporting EXTENT rather than AREA, so the 10 percent difference they are showing could quite well be correct.
I have no idea how the author of the article came up with 30 percent.
I'm bankrupt
By SimpsonPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 05:22 GMT
Like many others, I invested my life savings in the Northwest Passage Shipping Company, when I read the news about a scientist saying that the north pole would be free from ice this summer.
Get in on the ground floor, right?
I thought I did my homework on it. First I verified that a scientist said it, then looked up "science" in Webster's.
Webster's read:
Science: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
I guess I read this wrong. I read science = systematic facts or truths.
In hindsight, I would have been better off calling a psychic hotline for my predictions.
Now I have to read all of you gloating that you never believed it.
Thanks a lot, you jerks.
I was going to sue the scientist over this. But I read through all the definitions of science agian, and decided that the person who made the prediction could not possibly be a scientist. So I am going to sue the newspapers for making this stuff up.
Perfect temperature
By SimpsonPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 07:32 GMT
I would like some answers from the armchair scientists out there.
The climate changes. Why so much doom and gloom about it?
Why do you think now is so perfect? Worried that your beach front real estate might be under water, or 1/2 mile from the beach 100 years from now?
We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than it is now.
We know that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Do we know what the lowest ever temperature was?
How about the peak temperature between ice ages?
Are we on the temperature upside or the downside from the last ice age?
There have been warm periods and cool periods since the last ice age. Explain why there is not a steady increase in temperature, since the last ice age. Why are there variations?
Why do they sometimes last hundreds of years?
City living human history only covers a short span of history. But archeologists have found cities under water. They have also found port cities far from the water. Assuming we are now at the median, this would suggest that there is at least a +-100 ft natural variation in sea level, in the last 10,000 years. How would a change of 3/5/20 ft in sea level in the next 200 years vary from the historical norm?
If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
If sea levels dropped 20 ft over the next 200 years, marshlands would be lost, and mountains would get taller. But wouldn't the marshlands just move with the coast?
Several years ago the south east US was hit by about a hurricane a week, we were told that this was due to global warming and that we could expect more of the same. Since then, there has been a lack of hurricanes. This has caused an overall water shortage in the SE US, also due to global warming.
So, will global warming cause more hurricanes, or more drought for <insert region here>? (must pick one)
rose coloured glace
By john welchPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:25 GMT
Melting polar ice is a variable mixture as the colours in photos show. Was the Titanic in Polar Ice when it sank? The boundary is indefinite and photos cannot not show it objectively. The article needed to show what data-base was used and the precise error.
re: Now the Seals are endangered
By MarkPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:38 GMT
Not as endangered as they were from the ice disappearing. Several species REQUIRE icepack to continue existence.
Stop making up stupid shit.
@sGreg Flemin
By MarkPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:44 GMT
"No it hasn't"
Yes, it has. The temperature has risen considerably since the 1950 decadal average.
This morning it was 9 degrees. Now it's nearly 10. That means in less than four days time, the world will be hot enough to boil water!!!
Sea levels
By JoeyPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 09:57 GMT
If there had been a significal ice melt, surely the sea level would have risen. I have been visiting the same beach now for over fifty years and can see no difference in the high tide line from my youth.
Timescales...
By mittfhPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 10:38 GMT
While it is important to take regular measurements of weather / ice / pollution etc., what many people (especially the media) fail to realise is that climate change isn't measured over pathetic timescales like one year, but over decades and centuries.
Smaller scale example: imagine a temperature data logger. You look at it at 6am and 9am and notice the temperature is rising. Quick - get your sunhats - we're in for a heatwave! By 11am, the temperature has dipped as a raincloud comes over. By 1pm it's risen again, and by 6pm it's feeling rather chilly. Looking at the longer term data, you might notice a week or so when the temperature constantly dips aroundabout 11am. But it's only when you've got a year or so's data that you can see the overall average temperature patten, and only afer several years that you can confidently say that September tends to be warmer than November.
Remember that what the climate scientists are saying is that a significant change in weather patterns can be caused by a global average rise of only 1-2 degrees C. Normally we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Whilst glib statements like "We need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%" are laughable, even if AGW isn't happening, surely it makes sense to do what we can to reduce energy use, especially as the world's oil and gas reserves will one day reach peak (even though noone knows yet when that will be, and statisticians have as much success on predicting the date as cults do in predicting the second coming or the end of the world), the world's human population continues to rise, and countries will increasingly find the export / import of resources hindered by hotheads who find arms more exciting than jaws...
The flame (if it appears!) because AGW is so contentious, and politicians and scientists alike delight in generating hot air...
@scotchbonnet
By Steen HivePosted Saturday 16th August 2008 11:29 GMT
"Not to ignore the obvious, but since the prediction was for an "ice-free Arctic"
You are ignoring the obvious - that was not the "prediction" at all.
Re: @sGreg Flemin
By JoshPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 12:04 GMT
You mean 5000 degrees F?
Paris because there's no Pointy Haired Boss.
Re some posts
By GlobalthinkerPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 12:13 GMT
Re: "I'm bankrupt " by simpson
If you had done your homework you had seen the original statement wherein the scientist said there was a 50/50 chance of the north pole becoming ice free. There is no such thing as absolute truth in this world, science deals with probabilities.
___
Re: "Perfect temperature" by simpson
You state many good questions, most of which already has answers. The doom and gloom is about the change and the speed at which the change is coming. Predictions say we could raise the temperature by 6 degrees within 200 years.
The planet will survive, no problem there, but we are likely to be wiped out or at least reduced greatly in numbers.
Last time the temperature became 5 degrees higher than our 1950 level, 95 % of all species on Earth died out. This was a natural hot period where some event set of a cascade mechanism and more and more greenhouse gasses were released.
I think it's safe to say that a human population of 6 billion people cannot be sustained if 95 % of all species were to become extinct. That is what the gloom and doom is about.
Global warming is a term that understates the problems, as some regions will not experience any warming, while others will see significant warming. Global climate change is better term since we will see a change in climate and weather patterns. Tree lines will move towards the poles changing your local fauna and flora. Forests unsuited for the new climate might dry up, catching fire and both releasing more carbon as well as stop being a carbon sink. Some glaciers will continue to melt (which people rely on for water, they will now have none). A few might grow.
Yes we could sit back, continue our business as usual and see if the horrible scenarios turn out to become reality, or we could try to decrease the risks of those scenarios becoming a reality by any means necessary and to the best of our growing knowledge of global climate change.
___
Re: "Sea levels" by Joey
Since the Arctic sea ice is in the sea, not resting on land, it displaces the same amount of water that it will become when it melts. It's an equilibrium and the Arctic will not raise sea levels. Try filling a glass, putting in an ice block and see what happens when the ice melts!
The sea level will rise only when Greenland's ice as well as parts of the Antarctic ice melts since they rest on land mass.
___
Re: "Timescales...", by mittfh
You state that statisticians cannot predict when oil and gas reserves will peak very well. You're wrong, M. King Hubbert predicted the production capacity peak of the US within a few years, a remarkable prediction, and the bell shaped curve can be seen in most oil fields extracting oil.
He predicted world oil production would peak around the year 2000 looking at the growth rates of 1950. Since we had the oil crisis in 1970 and the legislation for more fuel efficient cars by President Carter, the peak was pushed a bit into the future as the growth rate was lowered.
We're likely at the peak now as production has plateaued since the year 2005. Most geologists who know anything about oil agree that if we're not at the peak now, we will be within 10 years. But I find it more likely to be sooner than that.
One could force an increase in production for a few years creating a new peak, but that would drive up prices exponentially so it's not likely to happen. More likely is that the price slowly and steadily goes up over time and we become more and more fuel efficient and use more public transportation to cut our need for oil as the price climbes on. The less oil we use, the cheaper it will be... But we will run out of "cheap oil" within 30 years if we continue on the current trend and do nothing. I consider $300 a barrel to be cheap.
Sea levels
By MarkPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:10 GMT
No. As so many denialists point out, ice melting when in water doesn't change the sea levels.
If it's on land (like Greenland or the antartic) this is different.
mittfh: yes, so when over 50 years the temperature has gone up 3 degrees and you already know that during that time we have had only one thing that has been consistently increasing over that time (CO2 levels) *and* you have a reason why these should be linked (correlation is not causation, but if you have a causation that will correlate, you can link them), what do you think? It's all a lie???
Josh: Nope, water boils at 100C 90 hours later < 4 days > 3 days. Duh.
Re: Jeff
By Steven GoddardPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:12 GMT
Can you give more precise links to where you got the 14% data? I'd like to try them out.
They normally match the NSIDC extent images very closely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6q2KKwUgy8
The CT images showed >40% delta vs. 2007 yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-MnbOGfLE
It really doesn't matter...
By Ian BonhamPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:26 GMT
... because come September 10th, there won't be any ice. Or water. Or land masses.
Just a tiny little sign saying "Earth was here..."
:)
What's that? More pseudoscience you say...?
Melt over the last week
By Steven GoddardPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:45 GMT
I added a new video that shows melt over the last week - which appears to have nearly stopped. Some portions of the Arctic have already begun to re-freeze.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jii_33xW4Vg
Here is a live blow-by-blow of some Australian sailors attempting to navigate through the ice in the supposedly ice-free Northwest Passage.
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/
Thanks to Anthony Watt's crew for that link.
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Shawn WhelanPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 17:47 GMT
The little RCMP boat easily made it through the Arctic's Northwest passage in 86 days from Halifax to Vancouver in 1944. How would that be possible pre AGW?
Compare the ice melt.
By Shawn WhelanPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 18:05 GMT
Good site to compare dates back to 79.
The Arctic has turned cold and the melt is far behind last year.
I expect a headline story from the BBC next week pointing out the huge increase in ice.
Well how come they can't manage it now, if Steven is right?
Voyage of the St. Roch
By MarkPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 19:19 GMT
Well how come they can't manage it now, if Steven is right?
PS the site going on about that trip merely calls it "a more northerly passage".
sceptical observer
By Juel EdwardsPosted Saturday 16th August 2008 20:01 GMT
Since the first atomic powered submarine they have been going under the polar ice and breaking it up allowing the ice to drift away and melt. How much heat do those subs leave at the arctic? The ice there is always on the verge of melting because it is floating on salt water which is warmer.
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Shawn WhelanPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:19 GMT
Larsen took the St. Roch through in '44 with little trouble. And these were uncharted waters of the more northerly route.
Larsen kept a log which is in book form and wrote about the many years in the thirties and forties he spent in the north.
No prediction of an ice free arctic - that's a lie.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:20 GMT
"Not to ignore the obvious, but since the prediction was for an "ice-free Arctic", and there's somewhere between 10% and 30% more ice than last year, wouldn't that mean that the prediction was a complete bust, regardless of the amount of ice growth?" - ScotchBonnet
No one predicted that the region would be ice free. What was stated that this year was another potential record melt and that the region of the ocean around the pole might be ice free - the first time ina long, long time.
If anyone tells you that scientists claimed that the Arctic Ocean was going to be ice free, then they are lying to you.
Volcanic Pussbucket
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:27 GMT
"Huge Volcanoes May Be Erupting Under Arctic Ice." Jimpeel
No effect what so ever.
The arctic ocean is a very big place. Did the hot magma from the mount st. helens eruption increaes the temperature of the air in Main?
Nope. And it would take billions of times more heat to heat an ocean perceptably due to it's depth and vastly larger specific heat compared to air
Anything but Co2. By Gawad, it has to be anything.....
In science, data has the final say.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:30 GMT
"Interesting how some here are having difficulty seeing the obvious." - Goddard.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:15 GMT
"The little RCMP boat easily made it through the Arctic's Northwest passage in 86 days from Halifax to Vancouver in 1944. How would that be possible pre AGW?" - Whelan
Because there are always abnormally warm years.
Currently the north west passage is 40% ice. And it could get through there today as well.
Look at the following plot and tell us if northern sea ice is in decline.
By JeffyPoohPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:21 GMT
This SUV is powered exclusively with bio-fuel
(to be specific, oil made from whale blubber)
90% reductions in Co2 emissions are on the way
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:32 GMT
"Whilst glib statements like "We need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%" are laughable, even if AGW isn't happening, surely it makes sense to do what we can to reduce energy use," - MITTFH
9 gigatonnes of excess carbon are being pumped into the atmosphere every year. Anything emissions that are over the rate at which the gas is sequestered will over time result in a near limitless increase in CO2 levels. Even to the point of making the air unbreathable.
The industralized nations are going to have to reduce their emissions by 80 to 90 percent to reduce emissions to sustainable levels, and to make room for the industrialization of the rest of the world.
The alternative is extinction.
" especially as the world's oil and gas reserves will one day reach peak (even though noone knows yet when that will be" - MITTFH
Peak Oil was reached 3 years ago.
Questions answered. Most were childish.
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 02:14 GMT
I would like some answers from the armchair scientists out there.
> The climate changes. Why so much doom and gloom about it?
Because the biosphere and human culture has evolved for the previous temperature regime.
Any variance from the norm is necessarily immediately suboptimal.
"Why do you think now is so perfect?
See above.
> We know that there have been several ice ages, where the earth has been cooler than > it is now.
A couple of dozen in fact.
> We know that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Within the next 90 years the earth will have warmed such that it will be warmer than it has been for the last million years.
> Do we know what the lowest ever temperature was?
Yes 2'K the temperature of space.
> How about the peak temperature between ice ages?
>Are we on the temperature upside or the downside from the last ice age?
We are nearing the natural end of the current interglacial.
> There have been warm periods and cool periods since the last ice age. Explain why > there is not a steady increase in temperature, since the last ice age. Why are there > variations?
Interglacials start with a rapid rise in temperature followed by an unsustainable overshoot and then a quick decline in global temps followed typically by a slow decline.
The current interglacial has followed that pettern until 100 years ago when it began to diverge. Global temps are now as high as they were during the unsuatanable peak that occurred at the end of the last ice age.
Why is there variance? The system is chaotic. and various natrual inputs perterb the system.
These inputs have all been quantified, and Co2 turns out to be the driving factor in the current temperture excursion.
> Why do they sometimes last hundreds of years?
Because the system is chaotic and sometimes orbits attractor A and somethimes attractor B,C,D,E,F etc.
>City living human history only covers a short span of history. But archeologists have found cities under water. They have also found port cities far from the water. Assuming we are now at the median, this would suggest that there is at least a +-100 ft natural variation in sea level, in the last 10,000 years. How would a change of 3/5/20 ft in sea level in the next 200 years vary from the historical norm?
Generally this is not a result of altertions in the depth of the ocean byt alterations in the height of the ground.
Historical norms are not important if all major U.S. coastal cities are under water as a result of CO2 emissions.
> If the sea level rose 20 ft over the next 200 years, would 1 billion people drown, > or would they slowly move (to prevent said drowning)?
If 1 billion refugees moved to America to escape the loss of their homes due to global warming, would the U.S. be willing to accept them?
"Several years ago the south east US was hit by about a hurricane a week, we were told that this was due to global warming and that we could expect more of the same."
You weren't told that by any scientist or even Al Gore. All maintain (correctly) that no individual weather event can be said to be caused by the ongoing human induced change in the global climate.
Modeling shows that warmer water causes stronger hurricanes. It also shows that hurricanes are chance formations And like the roll of the dice, sometimes you are going to roll a sequence of 6's.
I used the "final-gsfc" data for Aug. 12, 2007 and "near-real-time" data for Aug. 11, 2008.
Titanic
By SimpsonPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 06:49 GMT
"... Melting polar ice is a variable mixture as the colours in photos show. Was the Titanic in Polar Ice when it sank?... "
The Titanic was not in polar ice.
But, polar ice was in the Titanic.
@Mark: "... so when over 50 years the temperature has gone up 3 degrees and you already know that during that time we have had only one thing that has been consistently increasing over that time (CO2 levels) ..."
Only one thing?
You sure about that?
@Simpson
By MarkPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 09:26 GMT
"You sure about that?"
Do you have anything else that has increased? Are you going to say that human respiration is causing GW???
And Polar Ice being in the Titanic was the POINT of that person. A big lump of ice could be 20% of a pixel and therefore count as "polar ice" to Steven.
Re: Steven Goddard - The Emperor's New Clothes
By Douglas LowePosted Sunday 17th August 2008 09:35 GMT
Pixel counting is all well and good - but, as myself and Jeff have pointed out above, you have to take into account what the pixels actually represent, rather than just assume that they all represent 100% ice cover. Have you done this, and if not, why not?
Are you sure?
By AlanPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 10:27 GMT
I read this article and a number of others. This is a complex issue but one that requires facts. Most of the other articles indicate that although July appeared better than same in 2007, storms have caused high melting in August. Can you update this story?
Solar minimum
By Luis AldamizPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 12:08 GMT
We are at a Solar minimum, with two succesive years without any solar spots, what statistically implies that the overall weather should be quite colder these years than average. In fact, I read at the beginning of the year how some claimed this should push the breaks somewhat in the global warming process.
Nevertheless this summer (and the pervious winter) has not been cool at all and the oyster mortality in France is sign (among other items) that warming goes ahead.
Just wait a handful of years and let's discuss this issue in the Solar max of c. 2017... or even just a couple of years from now it should all be more clear.
Are you sure?
By Shawn WhelanPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:19 GMT
Check it out for yourself Alan. -8.7 deg C in Alert yesterday and you think the melt is accelerating?
You don't need to believe the junk science propoganda in the MSM or the biased science from biased scientists.
There is a huge increase in Arctic ice and the Arctic is below normal for temps, which likely means the melt will soon end.
By Shawn WhelanPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:25 GMT
Actually the Northern sea ice is hugely accelerating in 2008 and the Earth is cooling unless you fudge the figures.
Explain how with such a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions in the last ten years and a slight cooling of the Earth the AGW theory is still viable.(slight cooling if Hansen is not allowed to fudge the numbers)
When Larsen piloted the St. Roch around the Arctic in the 30's and 40's the ice was at a low level as present day. Before the invention of the SUV.
Shawn Whelan
By MarkPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:44 GMT
No, the northern sea ice is accelerating and the earth cooling if you fiddle the figures.
E.g. if you look at total loss this year it is already more than last year. But if you take the minimum of the entirety of last year and the minimum when the year is not yet over?
So if you fiddle the figures and forget the year is not yet done, ice is increasing.
See how he fiddles the figures, folks?
The melt is mostly complete
By Shawn WhelanPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 16:20 GMT
Actually at this point the melt is mostly done for the year and there is a huge increase in the Arctic ice. That is fact.
Just look at the day to day comparisn from 2007 to 2008.
You can see the facts for yourself. No need to go through Hansen.
The AGW thesis is falling apart. Only the zealots will continue to believe.
Shawn
By MarkPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 18:20 GMT
Mostly complete is not complete.
If it was complete, there's only one thing you can do.
Go through its pockets and look for loose change.
NB: this tabloid piece is incorrect: the data he's using is derived from NASA figures, so if he derives from this derived data something different from the NASA figures, his analysis is incorrect.
Just Thinkin' . . . . AGAIN
By GregPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 18:44 GMT
Consensus : around 350bc Aristotle spoke of an earth centered universe, he was a brilliant thinker and people embraced what he had to say, around 200bc Hipparchus wrote a book describing this earth centered universe, it became the definitive work on the subject, around 100ad Ptolemy laid out the foundations of Calculus and created the first mathematical model of the motions of the planets, it could predict, including the retrograde motions, the position of a planet far into the future with a high degree of accuracy. and so there was Consensus between the Church, the State, the Scientists, and the mathematical Models. The argument was so airtight that for almost 2000 years it was Dogma, then came Copernicus who in 1543 proposed a Heliocentric universe, his ideas where so outlandish he was labeled a Heratic ( I'm guessing because the label Tobacco Scientist just didn't have the same impact back then), it would seem the Peer Review of the time gave his works a thumbs down. Then came Galileo who in 1633 observed the planetary motions in a way that only made sense in a heliocentric universe, at the same time Kepler created the Mathematical Models of elliptical orbits that for the first time where more accurate than Ptolemy's. There where more charges of Heresy, and house arrests, Trials and inquisitions, browbeating and chest thumping and foaming at the mouth, but eventually after 2000 years Consensus fell apart and the Dogma was sent to the trash bin.
Chris Fox said "...these troll pseudo-science articles that do little more than preach to a depressingly large gallery of fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02 and the notions of steady state conditions, or the nature of peer-reviewed science.
Consensus and Peer review need to be taken with a grain of salt, anytime you have peer review by those that are in consensus with you, your chances of getting a favorable review are greatly increased, I think of it as preaching to the Choir. what was peer review on sterilizing surgical instraments when spontaneous generation was dogma, how about "My religion is the only right one" or Peer Review on "My parents are idiots" amongst teenagers, I think you get the point.
I'm not sure what your point was about "steady state conditions" , you just kinda threw one out without explanation, more than that, I fail to see how it could possibly relate to Climate Change, which by it's very nature, is anything but a "steady state condition"
The notion that "fellow deniers who don't apperar to understand uncontested basic science about the behaviour of C02" is an incorrect perception, Most everybody agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas, hence the label "Greenhouse Gas", and here is another shocker for you, within the science community both camps are not that far apart as to the effect of CO2, the big disagreement is the overall effect, The IPCC models rely on "Feedback" and "Forcing" agents in the models to amplify the effects because even the AGW groups know that CO2 alone can't produce the scary scenerios. it is the value of these feedback and forcing agents that is highly contested. Some models use as a positive what some scientists declare as a negetive agent, other agents are exagerated to the point that by some estimates the IPCC has overestimated the overall effects of CO2 by as much as 2,000%, hence the discrepancy. but still we see statments like: "Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature." This is typical of the kinds of statments can be found all over, this one came from Union of Concerned Scientists: global warming 101. it uses a truth and a half truth to lead one to a false conclusion.
the statment starts out with the first sentence: a scientific fact, the second sentence: also a scientific fact, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses DO trap heat, but it is not very clear, why does it not include natural sources which would account for 95% of greenhouse gasses in the form of water vapor or at the very least note that man's contribution of CO2 to date is a mere 0.117% of all greenhouse gasses combined, perhaps this is because it would make the end of the second sentence, the conclusion, much less plausable and reveal it to be misguided and erronious conjecture. the only dramatic temperature swings in the past decade have been downward, not upward. and dramatic increases in temperatures WOULD in fact be very suprising with such small greenhouse gas shifts. from the very begining some of the worlds preeminant climatologists pointed out that such small shifts could never achieve the temperature results being predicted. even CO2 levels of over 400% of current would yield a temperature rise of less than 0.5°C by 2100.
Vendicar Decarian declared "In science, data has the final say." what was obvious was you stopped at 2007, from Jan2007 to Jan2008 All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) reported a drop in avg global temperature of between 0.65C to 0.75C. your data was from GISS, GISS data is based solely on ground based readings, the least accurate due to heat island effects. you are aware I hope that the data being generated by GISS was found to be flawed and was indeed too high. Hanson admitted blame for it but claimed it was a computer programming oversight. considering his track record many wonder if the oversight was intentional. He wrote this in Scientific American in March of 2004:
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
there is a new effort to cull the ground based monitering stations that are no longer useful, these include stations that are now in the middle of a parking lot, next to A/C condensing units, at the end of airport runway being blasted by jet exhaust, and many others,
To me your header "In science, data has the final say." should read "to further the agenda, cherry pick the flawed and incomplete data and present it as the final say and ignore the more complete and timely data that contradicts the agenda"
Knee deep denialist Bullshit
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 22:38 GMT
"There is a huge increase in Arctic ice and the Arctic is below normal for temps, which likely means the melt will soon end." - Shawn Whelan
Bullshit. Melting continues, and at a high rate as the following link shows.
However the sun will soon set, and then the melt will certainly come to an end.
Hanson Refused Bush's Gagg Order
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 23:20 GMT
"Vendicar Decarian declared "In science, data has the final say." what was obvious was you stopped at 2007, from Jan2007 to Jan2008" - Greg
Apparently Greg wants the 2008 average global temperature included before 2008 is over and the average can be computed.
You can't get much dumber than that.
"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) reported a drop in avg global temperature of between 0.65C to 0.75C. your data was from GISS, GISS data is based solely on ground based readings, the least accurate due to heat island effects." - Greg
Heat island effects are removed from the analysis by either omitting unfavorable sites, or through direct temperature adjustement.
As to GISS being strictly from ground based measurements, again Greg is entirely wrong.
From NASA.
"A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.) "
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
"you are aware I hope that the data being generated by GISS was found to be flawed and was indeed too high. Hanson admitted blame for it but claimed it was a computer programming oversight." - Greg.
Yes, a trivial error was found in a compensation factor for one set of satellite measurements. Within 2 days NASA provided credit to those who found the error, and a corrected recomputation that used an appropriate factor.
The net result of the "error" was to throw off the global temperature by a single digit in the third decimal place. A variance so slight that it is impossible to detect in a plot of global surface temperatures.
"considering his track record many wonder if the oversight was intentional."
Hanson is now one of the favorite whipping boys of the Denialist camp since he Publicly refused to be gagged by the orders issued by George Bush in his attempt to gagg scientists of all types.
Removing U.S. data would only <INCREASE> the observed warming
By Vendicar DecarianPosted Sunday 17th August 2008 23:26 GMT
Comments on: Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
Its all Doom and Gloom, the World is Coming to Its' End .........................
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
Skiing
By JonB Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
Is the answer...
By Tawakalna Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:13 GMT
This article should be dismantled, ground into a fine dust and shredded
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:15 GMT
Soot
By Graham Dawson Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:20 GMT
Calm down people!
By dervheid Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:24 GMT
In that case
By Kirstian K Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:25 GMT
Lets see how they spin this.
By ooFie Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:33 GMT
There's something rotten north of Denmark
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:36 GMT
Proper reporting?
By Mark Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:36 GMT
Just waiting for them to come up with with something else to keep their jobs
By youvegot tobejoking Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:39 GMT
Global Warming?
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:43 GMT
We like more ice
By Tim Spence Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:44 GMT
Alarming graph
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:44 GMT
Funny you should ask
By Chris Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:50 GMT
Not Based on Solid Science
By Solomon Grundy Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:51 GMT
Cut that out!
By Jonathan Richards Posted Friday 15th August 2008 10:53 GMT
Global Warming is a Scam
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:02 GMT
ice melting=larger land mass?
By Mart Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:14 GMT
why the confusion
By Gary Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:15 GMT
So the end of the world in not nigh !
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:17 GMT
Good question...
By goggyturk Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:17 GMT
Well... you can find claims any way you like
By Toidi Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:18 GMT
Science?
By Kevin Crisp Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:22 GMT
oooh all scientific like
By james Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:28 GMT
That's the trouble
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:31 GMT
Lies, damned lies and statistics
By Mark Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:32 GMT
Sleep in bed easier for now
By Rob Farnell Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:42 GMT
Some talk over area, some over mass...
By Ole Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:44 GMT
Wow
By Campbell Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:54 GMT
The first paragraph says it all
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 11:57 GMT
@Kevin Crisp
By Mark Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:12 GMT
Article valid but not whole truth...
By richard alexander Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:17 GMT
STOP PRESS: red herrings found at the north pole
By n Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:32 GMT
Colour-blind software?
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:34 GMT
No surprise
By Alexis Vallance Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:39 GMT
IIRC
By Ed Blackshaw Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:44 GMT
Better proof
By Wade Burchette Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:47 GMT
The true secret of "global warming"...
By Ian Michael Gumby Posted Friday 15th August 2008 12:52 GMT
Bored of this
By And Clover Posted Friday 15th August 2008 13:08 GMT
@Ian Michael Gumby
By John Bayly Posted Friday 15th August 2008 13:54 GMT
Arctic ice vs. Arctic SEA Ice
By Laurent Somers Posted Friday 15th August 2008 14:11 GMT
When is this article going to be fixed?
By Duncan Hothersall Posted Friday 15th August 2008 14:14 GMT
Agreed, very boring
By Jolyon Ralph Posted Friday 15th August 2008 14:18 GMT
I can't quite understand this...
By Dodgy Geezer Posted Friday 15th August 2008 14:45 GMT
the work of good mr goddard
By Chip Mefford Posted Friday 15th August 2008 14:59 GMT
Update as of August 15
By Steven Goddard Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:04 GMT
What a heap of shit!
By Jolyon Ralph Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:36 GMT
Complexity and Cryosat
By wookiee2008 Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:40 GMT
@Dodgy Geezer
By Klaus Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:52 GMT
Only 10% more ice?
By Anonymous John Posted Friday 15th August 2008 15:59 GMT
Re Chip Mefford
By Steven Goddard Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:12 GMT
So the next ice age has started then?
By ian Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:13 GMT
@Toidi
By RRRoamer Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:20 GMT
news
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:43 GMT
@klaus
By Mark Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:49 GMT
I'm as confused as Paris...
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:50 GMT
@Mark
By Kevin Crisp Posted Friday 15th August 2008 16:59 GMT
One image
By Globalthinker Posted Friday 15th August 2008 17:08 GMT
Just Thinkin'
By Greg Posted Friday 15th August 2008 17:11 GMT
Those eco cars around London
By Aron Posted Friday 15th August 2008 17:59 GMT
@ And Clover
By Michael Posted Friday 15th August 2008 18:22 GMT
What an awful article.
By Garth Posted Friday 15th August 2008 18:46 GMT
Are the icecaps melting
By Marco Posted Friday 15th August 2008 18:56 GMT
Medium term cooling, long term warming.
By Watashi Posted Friday 15th August 2008 19:17 GMT
this article is a complete waste of time
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 15th August 2008 19:31 GMT
@Kevin Crisp
By Mark Posted Friday 15th August 2008 19:57 GMT
WTF
By asdf Posted Friday 15th August 2008 19:59 GMT
Not all pixels are equal...
By Douglas Lowe Posted Friday 15th August 2008 20:01 GMT
Not another one...
By Kieron Wilkinson Posted Friday 15th August 2008 20:23 GMT
Excuses, excuses!!
By Herby Posted Friday 15th August 2008 20:30 GMT
Inconvenient Truth
By Josh Posted Friday 15th August 2008 21:51 GMT
Logical fallacies and inaccurate claims
By Jeff Posted Friday 15th August 2008 22:16 GMT
The real conspiracy (yet again)
By Chris Fox Posted Friday 15th August 2008 22:22 GMT
@ Mark
By Greg Fleming Posted Friday 15th August 2008 22:49 GMT
Goddard's data disproves his own assertions.
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Friday 15th August 2008 22:50 GMT
The Emperor's New Clothes
By Steven Goddard Posted Friday 15th August 2008 23:22 GMT
I recommend
By Martin Lyne Posted Friday 15th August 2008 23:23 GMT
Weather isn't climate herby.
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Friday 15th August 2008 23:29 GMT
@Herby
By Steen Hive Posted Friday 15th August 2008 23:51 GMT
@ Mark
By scotchbonnet Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 00:43 GMT
Concerted attack?
By Alan Wilkinson Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:48 GMT
Oops
By Alan Wilkinson Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:49 GMT
Now the Seals are endangered
By Jim Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:53 GMT
Maybe this could have some effect?
By jimpeel Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 03:57 GMT
sneaky global warming
By the enemies of god Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 04:02 GMT
Where does the 30 percent come from
By Jeff Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 04:34 GMT
I'm bankrupt
By Simpson Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 05:22 GMT
Perfect temperature
By Simpson Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 07:32 GMT
rose coloured glace
By john welch Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:25 GMT
re: Now the Seals are endangered
By Mark Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:38 GMT
@sGreg Flemin
By Mark Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 08:44 GMT
Sea levels
By Joey Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 09:57 GMT
Timescales...
By mittfh Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 10:38 GMT
@scotchbonnet
By Steen Hive Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 11:29 GMT
Re: @sGreg Flemin
By Josh Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 12:04 GMT
Re some posts
By Globalthinker Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 12:13 GMT
Sea levels
By Mark Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:10 GMT
Re: Jeff
By Steven Goddard Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:12 GMT
It really doesn't matter...
By Ian Bonham Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:26 GMT
Melt over the last week
By Steven Goddard Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 13:45 GMT
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Shawn Whelan Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 17:47 GMT
Compare the ice melt.
By Shawn Whelan Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 18:05 GMT
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Mark Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 19:18 GMT
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Mark Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 19:19 GMT
sceptical observer
By Juel Edwards Posted Saturday 16th August 2008 20:01 GMT
Voyage of the St. Roch
By Shawn Whelan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:19 GMT
No prediction of an ice free arctic - that's a lie.
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:20 GMT
Volcanic Pussbucket
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:27 GMT
In science, data has the final say.
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:30 GMT
And now very cold in the Canadian Arctic
By Shawn Whelan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 00:30 GMT
Northern Sea ice decline accelerating
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:15 GMT
Bumper Sticker
By JeffyPooh Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:21 GMT
90% reductions in Co2 emissions are on the way
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 01:32 GMT
Questions answered. Most were childish.
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 02:14 GMT
Re: Steven Goddard - link to NSIDC data
By Jeff Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 04:01 GMT
Titanic
By Simpson Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 06:49 GMT
@Simpson
By Mark Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 09:26 GMT
Re: Steven Goddard - The Emperor's New Clothes
By Douglas Lowe Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 09:35 GMT
Are you sure?
By Alan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 10:27 GMT
Solar minimum
By Luis Aldamiz Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 12:08 GMT
Are you sure?
By Shawn Whelan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:19 GMT
Northern Sea ice decline accelerating
By Shawn Whelan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:25 GMT
Shawn Whelan
By Mark Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 13:44 GMT
The melt is mostly complete
By Shawn Whelan Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 16:20 GMT
Shawn
By Mark Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 18:20 GMT
Just Thinkin' . . . . AGAIN
By Greg Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 18:44 GMT
Knee deep denialist Bullshit
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 22:38 GMT
Hanson Refused Bush's Gagg Order
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 23:20 GMT
Removing U.S. data would only <INCREASE> the observed warming
By Vendicar Decarian Posted Sunday 17th August 2008 23:26 GMT