ARCTIC ICE IS RAPIDLY MELTING (2009)

[barrunto321]

ok so the solution will be tax every human more for co2 emissions, a complete Joke. Climate change is a new religion...

[moses141]

by changed I mean increased*

[moses141]

how can any of you explain then that the world temperature hasnt changed since 2001. The past 3 years have concurrently been the coldest ever recorded, and predictions now state that for the next 20 years the world will become rapidly colder.

Infact, 2008 had the highest recorded temperature change ever recorded, the world became colder. Not warmer.

There are 30,000 scientists in America who all agree that this is all clearly nonsense, and you are all fucking morons for believing it.

[zamirfarooqui]

What happened if the entire Glaciers on universe were melt into sea water....????

The clear concept about the "DAY OF JUDGEMENT",

45 years b4 the end of the world, there will be an animal appears on earth,

may be a specie of an alien Or in the form of our regular animal/mammals

who can speak the language of humans where ever that animal found he start speaking their language,

just like a newly born baby,.,

that shows the end of the world will began right after 45 years

[ttowntom]

And yes, Dr. Jones' emails speak for themselves. When you receive a freedom-of-information request, and you respond by emailing other researchers asking them to delete any information dealing with that request, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to reach the correct conclusion. And no, "independent reviews" led by someone who is CEO of two carbon-trading firms don't count.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom And what great scientific break throughs have resulted from this for the denier team? There have been 3 enquiries into Jones and all have vindicated him.

But the real question of interest is that if their work is based upon conspiracy and faked data why can't someone prove them wrong? It should be easy and just think of how famous you'd be. Yet nothing.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to your conclusions it takes a conspiracy freak with a political agenda.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom As a guy who seems to believe people funded by radical anti-government regulation think tanks and fossil fuel interests you should be cautious about throwing aspersions.

[ttowntom]

You also ignored that fact that the most recent research has seen no acceleration in sea level rise this century, with an average rate of about 6-7 inches per century .. less than the rate the ocean was rising at several thousand years ago.

The ocean has been rising since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. The predicting increase in that rate of rise hasn't materialized. Another "oops" from the Church of Global Warming.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom And which research is this? The latest IPCC estimate is a rise of 80cm to 2m by 2100. That's well 5.5 to 13 times your 6-7 inches. And the rate of sea level rise has accelerated from an century long average of 1.8 mm/yr to estimates of between 2.8 to 3.1mm/yr between 1993 and 2003.

Sea levels rise for a reason. They rise as the earth warms and ice melts. Why is the earth warming now? Because of human action. With such a large number of humans living near the sea it is an issue.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

Good god, why is it you AGW fanatics don't even understand your own theories. Antarctica is not "warming" -- it's cooling. Even the latest IPCC AR report admits such (though the first two reports predicted warming...they didn't change their prediction until the data made it clear it was wrong).

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Sorry it's warming. Satellite readings from 1981 -2007 show warming trends over almost the entire continent, with a few cool patches in the Eastern Antarctic.

The Antarctic ocean is warming. Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions (Zhang 2007)

Hole in ozone layer causes cooling stratosphere. - (Gillet 2003)

This causes cyclonic winds - (Thompson 2002)

Wind pushes Ice around and creates polynyas leading to more ice formation.- (Turner 2009).

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Check NASA's latest temperature trends for Antarctica. The image can be found at:

earthobservatory (dot) nasa (dot) gov (froward slash) IOTD (froward slash) view(dot) php? id (equals) 8239

[ttowntom]

You also ignored COAPS recent announcement: global hurricane activity at a 33-year low...and Pacific activity at the lowest point since record-keeping began. What happened to GW making hurricanes worse, eh?

Or how about the long-term trend (30 years at least) of increase in southern sea ice? Initially the IPCC predicted the exact opposite..rapid warming in Antarctica, 3X fasther than the rest of the planet. It wasn't the cooling was irrefutable that they "fixed" the model to account for it.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom GW will make hurricanes worse. Are you going to point to trends ore one year events? Warm water creates hurricanes the oceans are warmer.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing. This is caused by a variety of reasons that are well understood (cyclonic winds creating polynyas, the nature of antarctic ocean circulation, and increased precipitation). But both the overall air and water temperature are increasing as one would expect and land ice is melting at an accelerating rate.

[ttowntom]

So what is the alarmist Trenberth's explanation of this? Does he even admit to the possibility that the models are simply wrong? Occam's razor and the basic scientific method tells us this is the most likely possibility. No -- Trenberth thinks its the real world itself that's wrong. He suggests the satellites are wrong. Or maybe that sneaky heat has hid down in the deep ocean, where we can't see it.

But the holy AGW model? No, it can't possibly be wrong! This is faith, not science.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom It isn't about the models. Trenberth says what he says because he knows the real world isn't wrong. There are a variety of natural phenomenon that tell us the earth is warming. That is unless birds and flowers have a political agenda.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

The latest research. Journal of Geophysical Research, "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" (Aug 2010). Mean sea level rise is 1.5 mm per year (6 inches per century), with no acceleration detected.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

Or if you prefer, Geophysical Research Letters, "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE" (2009) also finds a mean sea level rise of 1.5 mm per year.

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. The current rate of rise is identical to what it was 1000 years ago, and actually much *slower* than it was 10,000 years ago.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Which they also state is "in agreement with the total sea level rise observed by either Jason-1 (2.4 ± 1.1 mm/a) or Envisat (2.7 ± 1.5 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval."

Both papers cited are interesting, they run against the general findings and opinions of most recent work. That doesn't mean they are wrong but just being the most recent doesn't make it the final say. Sea level isn't easy to measure and one ore two studies doesn't change the whole game.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom The most influential work on sea level has been Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009 and more recently:

Cazenave and Llovel Marine Science 2010. 'Contemporary Sea Level Rise.' We show that for the 1993–2007 time span, the sum of climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm year−1) is only slightly less than altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm year−1)

This is reported as the consensus of the ocean observing community.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

You're either unable to read English or intentionally lying. Quoting from Solanki 2004 "Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850"

"We assume that the Sun has been responsible for climate change prior to 1970 and that their interrelation remained unchanged afterwards.."

Solanki has no data proving or even suggesting a solar increase caused the rapid warming 1880-1930; he simply "assumes" it. 

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Yeah sure. That's what scientists do. You're really embarrassing yourself now and it becomes increasingly obvious why you misread or buy into the lies about Jones and probably the emails and everything else.

He has data showing an increasingly active sun from 1880 to 1960. Most people think the sun has an effect on climate. Maybe you don't. So what is the mystery cause of the warming or does CO2 have a stronger effect than we think?

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

Please stop playing stupid. Solanki's paper had no "data" showing a solar increase caused early 19th century warming, followed by a subsequent decrease. That was an ASSUMPTION he made ...which he clearly explains in the paper's abstract.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Try looking at Solanki's page 2 and 3 he explains exactly where he gets his data from.

[ttowntom]

The fact is we don't understand exactly how the sun affects climate beyond simple direct insolation thermal forcing. There are many other causes due to the extremely high variance of corpuscular radiation and UVA+ frequencies, causes that affect cloud formation, planetary albedo, and several other factors.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom And if someone can actually produce some evidence of these other factors playing a significant role then we will factor them in. Right now AGW explains the warming we are seeing very well.

Corpuscular radiation: sunlight is more than a million times more effective at carrying energy. (NASA)

Albedo: Satellite measurements show no trend for albedo.

Cloud formation: The perceived correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature broke down 30 years ago.

[ttowntom]

@Rugby,

More lies from you. The Vermeer paper has nothing to do with measuring sea level rise; it's modeling research only. Cazenave's paper was in Annual Review of Marine Science, a very minor journal, has only _eight_ cites, and doesn't compare to Geophysical Review Letters or JGR.

What's even funnier is one of those papers directly contradicts you. Jevrejeva 2008: "Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago". Care to guess what CO2 emissions were in 1790 ? Lol.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Here is the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Why must an acceleration of sea levels be dependent on CO2. Do you think that I believe only CO2 affects temperature? 1790 is when the earth began to come out of that period we call the little ice age. That was caused by the sun coming out of the Maunder Minimum. That began the acceleration, which of you read Jevrejeva, you see has continued to accelerate, only the causes have changed. It isn't the sun anymore, its us.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

LOL, your circular logic is quite amusing. The fact here is that the sea is rising at the same pace it was over 200 years ago (and rising *slower* than it was 10,000 years ago). Yet you still want to use sea level rise as "proof" that AGW exists, based on the assumption that what caused the earlier warming just happened to coincidentally stop just as mankind began emitting significant quantities of CO2.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Quite linear actually. Ice melts because it's getting warmer. It is rising faster than it was 200 years ago but even if it was slower that wouldn't be proof against AGW. If it's warming ice will melt. The important question is why is it warming. At one point it was the sun. And then it was the Sun and human CO2. Now it's CO2. If it was warming faster in the distant past more would melt quicker. That has nothing to do with the reason for the melting today.

You're getting desperate.

[ttowntom]

Nice Cherry picking job from "Time Magazine" of all sources. Yet even here, in aninterview with one of the most strident AGW alarmists working today (Trenberth), in an article that refuses to interview any opposing scientists, one can see the writing on the walls.

The problem? AGW climate models predict that the earth should have warmed rapidly over the last 15 years. Yet here in the real world, it hasn't happened. All that heat is "missing". (cont).

[ferrett78]

(con't)

...Tracking the growing amount of heat on Earth is far more complicated than measuring temperatures at the planet's surface. The oceans absorb about 90 percent of the solar energy that is trapped by greenhouse gases. Additional amounts of heat go toward melting glaciers and sea ice, as well as warming the land and parts of the atmosphere. Only a tiny fraction warms the air at the planet's surface."

Thanks for the idea! Now you just need to read the articles ;-)

[ferrett78]

2) Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth's surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.

...

[ferrett78]

"This is why the number of scientists rejecting AGW has so rapidly increased in recent years."*

*citation required

[ttowntom]

By the way, some older papers claiming a 'warming trend' in the Southern Ocean are based largely on pre-1979 data. Before the advent of satellites and global radio buoys, sea surface temperatures were compiled by ships .. and the few readings taken around Antarctica tended to center around areas like Ross Island, home of the "Erebus Hot Spot", due to being sited over an active volcano.

Modern datasets relying on satellite data only show a cooling trend since 1979.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom Southern Ocean temperature cooling is only localized at certain depths and latitudes. THE CSIRO and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) have articles available detailing why drops in temperature and salinity at certain depths, plus sea ice increase in certain areas (which are counteracted by loss in other areas - West Antarctic Ice Sheet sound familiar? - which you neglect to mention) are symptomatic of a larger global warming trend.

[ttowntom]

@ferrett,

Sure, there are plenty of "explanations" of why global warming might cause Antarctica to cool. The problem is all of them came only **after** we observed that cooling. The original theory predicted the exact opposite....in fact, it predicted Antarctica to warm much more rapidly than the rest of the world.

The IPCC's AR1 and AR2 reports (still available online) confirm this. It wasn't until AR3 (in 2001) that the cooling trend could no longer be ignored.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom "The original theory predicted the exact opposite....in fact, it predicted Antarctica to warm much more rapidly than the rest of the world."

Correct. Did you check the SCAR data? Did you take into account the previous ice loss on the WAIS counteracts any increase seen in the last year or 2? Or what about the data that suggests the cooling effect is localized, as mentioned previously?

Youre still using the "its cold in this specific location, therefore GW is false" argument...

[ttowntom]

@ferrett,

Actually I'm using the standard scientific method, which is "the theory predicted A, B, and C, none of which happened, so the theory must be flawed". CO2-driven GCMs predict tropospheric response to exceed surface response, amplification at *both* poles, and several others which have been proven incorrect.

Further, we're not talking about increases of "a year or two". We're talking about a trend that has continued at least 30 years, since satellite observations began.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom I dont think you'll find a scientist on the planet that will say "the global warming theories we have are perfect and will predict every aspect of climate change perfectly". The fact that some details of the theory may not pan out doesnt mean the overall trend isnt what was expected. All you are doing is engaging in typical black and white thinking - "this aspect of the theory didnt exactly match nature in all circumstances, therefore the whole theory is flawed". Sorry, wrong.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom Also, your understanding of the scientific method seems to be flawed, more specifically at the conclusion/analysis stage. Essentially, if you find that the results of your prediction dont match up to your hypothesis, the proper course of action is not to trash the hypothesis, but to modify it in light of the results and any new data/observations that have been made. Which is exactly what is being done in this instance. Science is iterative. That's why it works.

[ttowntom]

Nonsense. Show a little intellectual backbone and be honest for once. It's not some "little details" ... it is every single thing the theory has ever predicted. All utterly incorrect. The theory is flawed to the core.

Where's the tropospheric hot spot? The Antarctic amplification? Where's the excess heat of the last 15 years? The increased hurricane and storm activity? All wrong - which is why the only scientists still supporting AGW are those benefiting from AGW grants money.



[ferrett78]

@ttowntom "it is every single thing the theory has ever predicted. All utterly incorrect."

"which is why the only scientists still supporting AGW are those benefiting from AGW grants money."

And you tell me to show intellectual backbone? Seems to me that Im not the one making sweeping generalizations, or unsupported claims with no citations or supporting evidence.

[ttowntom]

I've given cites for all this in prior posts. Need proof the IPCC originally predicted immediate Antarctic warming, not cooling? Read AR1 or AR2 - both still online. Need proof hurricane activity is at record lows? Read the latest announcements from the COAPS Hurricane Research Center. Need proof of the "missing heat problem" where climate models are still overpredicting observed warming by 100%? Google "missing heat global warming" for a range of excuses.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom "Google "missing heat global warming" for a range of excuses."

Here's some quotes from my first 2 results:

1) ... (Temperatures have not cooled, however; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just announced that last month was the warmest March on record.) Meanwhile, satellites and other observational tools indicate that the net heat retained by the planet has continued to increase, and that excess energy should be pushing up surface temperatures.

[ttowntom]

This is why the number of scientists rejecting AGW has so rapidly increased in recent years. The success of a theory is measured by its _predictive_ ability. Any theory can be contorted to fit real-world facts *after* those facts have already been observed. It's predicting those facts in advance that counts.

So far AGW GCMs have failed to do that even once. Every IPCC report after AR1 has scaled down predicted warming from earlier reports..and even AR4 is seriously overpredicting warming.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom "This is why the number of scientists rejecting AGW has so rapidly increased in recent years."

Any actual evidence for that rubbish? 98% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC. There are now no scientific organizations that take a stand against man made global warming. The warming we have seen fits well with in the range projected by the IPCC. Surely you don't get your information from Monkton!!!

[ttowntom]

"The warming we've seen" stopped in 1995. There's been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years...and the rate of warming for the last 40 years is actually slower than the rate of warming from 1880-1930...a period in which CO2 emissions were negligible when compared to modern levels.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom And here I was beginning to think you had some scientific credibility. Jones never said the warming stopped. Yes the warming since then is NOT QUITE statistically significant to 95% but he didn't expect it to be over such a short period. Only a fool reads that as warming has stopped. In fact there was .12 C warming.

The period 1910 to 1942 is comparable but then the CO2 was boosting a warming sun. Since 1980 the heating is basically all CO2 caused.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy,

Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? From IPCC AR4, pg 72: "it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent EXCEPT Antarctica." (emphasis mine)

UAH satellite data shows strong cooling over the entire Antarctic continent, with the exception of the small region around the peninsula.

The 2009 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Nature Jan 22 2009: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year - "A new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006, reported this week by Steig et al., suggests that overall the continent is warming by about 0.1 °C per decade."

They use longer periods and get the positive trends. That doesn't mean parts of the East weren't cooling. But as I said we know what is going on in Antarctica. And the ocean is warming.

[ttowntom]

@rugbyguy: ""The Antarctic has been shielded from the impacts of global warming."

Again, you're being incredibly dense. The AGW fanatics (and the first two IPCC reports) all predicted Antarctica to warm roughly 3X faster than the rest of the planet. For over a decade, they refused to believe it was cooling and even claimed the data was wrong, not their models. When they could no longer ignore it, they suddenly found a new "explanation" to explain it, rather than admit the models are flawed.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom You're little dramatization is bollocks but so what if the first two reports expected different results. It's called learning. We expected to see warming but it didn't materialize. A good scientist doesn't just throw up their arms and say gosh it isn't warming in one place on the planet therefore nowhere can be warming. (That's what deniers do.) They start looking for a reason. And now we've found it. Of course if it isn't true one of your experts should be able to prove it isn't true.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Also from an author of SCAR 2009:

-warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.

-SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face".

-"The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see"

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom Still more: -"Warmer water is getting under edges of West Antarctic ice sheet and accelerating the flow of ice into the ocean"

-By the end of the century, he said, the sheet will probably have lost enough ice alone to raise sea levels globally by "tens of centimetres".

-The remainder of the projected rise...from melting of the Greenland cap,... glaciers in the Himalayas and Andes, and expansion of seawater as it warms.

A number of research teams have come up with similar projections.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom "The Antarctic has been shielded from the impacts of global warming." But that won't last forever. The ozone hole is expected to repair itself in 50 yrs. As it does SCAR predicts greenhouse warming will come to dominate the temperature change across Antarctica, as in other parts of the planet. Doubling greenhouse gas concentrations would warm the continent by 3-4C. Most of Antarctica is so cold this rise would have little impact. But warming oceans would speed ice loss still further.

[ttowntom]

The period 1880-1930 is not "comparable" in warming. The warmer was *faster* than 1970-2010. I find it amusing you can shrug that away with a "warming sun" wink, when the solar variance over that period was no greater than what we're experiencing today.

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom The warming sun (1880-1930) is much more than a wink, it is a fact. Actually solar irradiance increased until 1960. It then levelled off and has actually provided a cooling effect (less irradiance) for the last 35 years. (Solanki 2004)

What is the nail in the coffin for your argument is that the warming has been so rapid and has continued without any other real cause other than human emitted CO2.

[ttowntom]

Finally, this nonsense that the earth experienced "0.12C warming" since 1995 is childish nonsense. A trend that large would be highly significant. (you seem to mistakenly believe statistical significance is based solely on duration, not magnitude).

The actual figure is .009, far too small to be significant. And, as Dr. Jones himself admitted, the global trend since 2001 has actually been COOLING, not warming (though again too small to be statistically significant).

[ttowntom]

Finally, its time to put to bed this nonsense that the earth is still "rapidly warming". Since 1995, there has been no statistically significant warming. None. You don't seem to understand what "statistically significant" means. It means the warming is so small that we're not even sure it exists, and isn't simply an artifact of the measuring process.  And since 2000, the trend has actually been *cooling* (though again not enough to be statistically significant).

[rugbyguy59]

@ttowntom And as soon as we get into a place where the length of time is long enough to expect a statistically significant result, we get it. If there was no warming it would never become statistically significant. Temperature is noisy so it takes longer periods to see the real trends.

Short periods, especially when the sun's irradiance is down. are not unexpected. Why do you think 2000-2006 matters?

[ttowntom]

Further, the ironic thing is that the melting of Arctic ice (as opposed to Antarctic) is actually one of the best things that could happen for humanity. It would open up the Northern Passage, saving billions in shipping costs and tens of millions of gallons of fuel each year. It would also open up millions of square miles of territory, rich with natural resources and fishing grounds.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom You realise what effect losing arctic ice cover will have on the planet's albedo, right? Plus, I cant really say I'm thrilled that you class one of the "best things that could happen to humanity" as opening new areas to exploit natural resources...

[ttowntom]

@ferrett,

Do you even realize *why* the Arctic is cold? Because solar insolation (the amount of sunlight) is very low, due to the angle of incidence. Basic physics.

Because insolation levels are so low, polar albedo changes have much less effect than they do in tropic or temperate regions. They're not a large factor.

In fact, a permanent arctic ice cap is a very rare feature in the earth's history. The northern cap continually forms and then melts way, a cycle repeated countless times.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom No one disputes the fact that the size of polar icecaps wax and wane (in geological timescales) due to several variables, and which lead to glacial and inter-glacial periods. And no one disputes that the angle of incidence of solar radiation in polar areas has an effect on the absorption rates. The point is that there IS an effect of raising/lowering albedo, and that its NOT occurring over geological timescales, and that is almost certainly IS caused by human activity.

[ttowntom]

@ferrett,

I repeat the fact -- southern sea is **increasing**, not decreasing. And has been for at least the last 30 years ... as long as we have satellite records for, in fact.

Northern sea ice is decreasing, but it has also been decreasing for a very long time - in the period 1880-1930 (when human emissions were negligible) it was actually decreasing faster than it is today.

[ferrett78]

@ttowntom Now, since you're using the data that southern sea ice is increasing, you should have no problem using the related data that the southern ocean is actually warming, and at a rate faster than the global average. The sea ice increase there has to do with ocean currents and atmospheric conditions - not a cooling trend. All data still points to an overall WARMING, despite the ice increase. Unless you'd like to pick and choose which facts you actually care to use?

[ttowntom]

@ferrett,

Repeating years-old talking points doesn't trump real world data. Warmer water doesn't equate to more ice, and "atmospheric conditions" don't have a large effect on sea ice, which (unlike terrestrial ice sheets) doesn't need precipitation to form.

A quick glance at the ICOADS SST (sea surface temperature) datasets show the Southern Ocean anomaly currently at between -2.0C and +0.5C. That's *cooling* not warming -- which explains why southern sea ice is also increasing.

[ttowntom]

Schwang, actually yes we are going through the end of an ice age. The last one ended just 20,000 years ago (the blink of an eye in geologic time), and sea level has been rising **constantly** throughout that entire 20,000 year period. This is why sea level rise, by itself, is not an indicator of rising temperatures. Quite the opposite in fact, as I explain in my prior post.

[chernomo]

they can't think this..they can't even figure out what next iPhone App to get..much less anything like this!! Need different medium!!

[FearlessLT]

"Lets save it". Three words all of that people say...

"omg omg its meeelting! zomg what to doo.."

I say - who cares, in 10 upcoming years, we'll meet the iceage due to the FRESH watter ALREADY in the seas and oceans. We can't change ANYTHING.

So yeah, lets enjoy the earth as it is now, rather than discussing about what is done each day by the whole earths population ;)

[Matu1]

In our country, all ice and snow is gone too...hmmm strange.

Al Gore come and save us.

[CciIcCo]

look on google earth there is no ice anymore!!!!!no ice!!!

[DoeBoi2525]

OMG! It's spring!!! and the ice is melting...

[2011FindTheTruth]

The ice is melting rapidly, and there is no global warming occuring. Even if warming was occuring, it's still happening way too fast. People automatically jump to the conclusion that its man made warming, but the fact is that the current rapid melt is not due to increased temperature.

[ervin2]

I love how climate change "skeptics" jump between "there is no warming" and "it's all natural". Which is it?

[ShwangShwing]

@ervin2 Lol, their brains just function in a "different" way. Another funny thing is "CO2 is in so little quantity that it can't affect anything. Oh, and by the way, its essential for life"

[ttowntom]

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. In fact, over most of that period they were rising much faster than they are today. Google Meltwater Pulse 1A for just one example.

Interestingly enough, even though Arctic ice is still decreasing, Antarctic sea ice has actually gone up in the last 30 years.

[ShwangShwing]

@ttowntom Meltwater pulse 1A was an instance in the sea level rise of about 20 m in less than 500 yrs,perhaps just 200 years. The meltwater event occurred in a period of rapid climate change when the Holocene glacial retreat was going on during the end of the last ice age. We are obviously not going through an end of an ice age right now.

[20x20Ghost]

BFS the ice melts and returns everyyear and goes through natural cycles so piss off you green leach

[Cryocide13]

Who cares? We can't control the planet. The Earth will continue its life cycle and create another extinction phase at some point. Just enjoy life and lern to say "fuck it" more.

[quisqueyatv]

lies!

[crazy7house]

There is no Global Warming, we came out of a warming trend, it's natural DUH! Seems like we are starting to cool, if anything... I don't think many ppl pay much attention to it anymore, the weather is the weather, climate changes periodically anyway.... sigh----

[crazy7house]

LOL

[goog2k]

JUST FOUND THIS:

Hottest January in UAH satellite record

Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"

February 5, 2010

"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."

To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"

Search:

Hottest January in UAH satellite record

[sweetness2follow]

What a load of propoganda shite......

[WolYou]

Most people are too stupid to think in physical laws. They think climate change must happen like in hollywood movies. Its like the story with the frog in boiling water. Climate change is simply too slow for people to realize it. Unless big coastal areas in the western world are getting flooded nobody will listen. We are waiting until its too late.

[vengencefrom1979]

@WolYou duhhhhayeeee, this is gonna cause flooding in 70 years? what fer should i worry?

[jazzbox111]

@WolYou But you should really watch the "Arctic Sea Ice timelaps from 1978 to 2009" to see that thats a turd in sugar you are selling. Earth has been cooling recently. This is undisputed fact. But now the alarmists claim its cooling cause its warming. Wait just another 2 years, you'll realise that its a fabricated bunch of crapp you are accepting.

[eeirertomb]

@jazzbox111 Fox news Much?

[lighterinthestorm]

well global warming is also a natural thing that happens periodically every some hundred years.

[TRUMPHENT]

@lighterinthestorm No one has ever claimed that climate change isn't constantly occurring. What's your point?

What is now beyond dispute is the rate at which change is being forced on the climate by anthropogenic activity.

[lighterinthestorm]

i agree with you.

[jazzbox111]

@TRUMPHENT touche.

[macedonianimation]

welldone! we could fck the earth ... :(

[blackle4ps3]

northern under-sea volcanic activity

[TheMaximumoverload]

I wish global warming was real just to see you save the planet people drowned. Just to see you stop saying GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! I can give a fuck less what you green loving hippie mother fuckers think. Fuck you and fuck your stupid bitching and crying. I'm going to run my chain saw extra lean and cut the fuck out of some trees. Boohoo you fuckers that know more than any one else does and can't have an opinion for you self idiots. I hope the mother fucking sea comes up and swallows you hole

[JosefRaddy]

New York Times 1932:

Ice caps are melting ...

Just google: new york times caps 1932 melting

[kja5]

The new world order started their misinformation campaign earlier than I thought!

[roflcopter2006]

The Arctic ice rapidly melts every summer. If it didn't, THEN i'd be worried.

[acerb45666555]

when both poles melt, earth heat up! we be doomed!

[twanaj88]

global warming is a fraud !!!!!!!!! like al gorlioni

[SweBlond123]

no its not. check the facts idiot

[twanaj88]

CLIMATEGATE !!!!!!!! ASSWIPE !!!!

[lectrolink]

Arctic sea ice minimum for 2009 has just been reported. The extent has greatly increased from both 2007 and 2008. However, look at the way media spins it: THE THIRD GREATEST ICE LOSS IN HISTORY! Of course they don't mention that "history" is only 30 years, nor the substantial percentage increase over 2007 & 2008. Of course these last two years of growing minimum ice is just an 'anomaly' say the pro-warming scientists, merely a detour on our way to the death of all polar bears. BAH! What bunk!

[j0hnwi11iams]

The arctic is losing all its old ice. The new ice is VERY thin.

[lectrolink]

The Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and it has survived much warmer periods in history than the present. It has been with us for hundreds of thousands of years. The idea that it will disappear by 2013 or 2030 is preposterous. Just this past summer, the retiring leader of Greenpeace admitted on BBC television interview that his organization's similar claim was misleading and was "a mistake." Stressed importance to 'emotionalize' issues

[brainbeacker]

testing

[teemuruskeepaa]

We are on a brick of an ice age because we are on top of a graph of Vostoc Ice Core temperatures which as crashed quickly very much every 100000 years for the last 500000 years. This is a stronger thing than green house effect but the gases in the air might make it quicker, from hot to cold.

[LoneWolf138]

Opposite to what is happening in the Antarctic! Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. The earths average temperature peaked in 1998. Its been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels. Granted it is warmer in some areas but it is colder in others!

[fartedonyourface]

I dont understand so are you saying the ice caps arent melting away but getting bigger?But what about the pictures?

[j0hnwi11iams]

1997 was an outlier. It happened to coincide with el nino. The earth has been warming on average. Deniers use 1997 in a manner that is completely misleading.

[aaronmoravek]

it's true because it shows is melting and its on youtube.

[ppp333x]

People will be going for summer holiday trips here soon, huh?

[lukeslandspeeder]

everything litterally 85% different now compared to the 1980"s.

should this be the same?.