Arctic: Ice-Free by 2013?

We used to be under a glacier years ago. Tens of thousands of years ago but its gone now. I guess all of those cars the cavemen drove made it go away.

You may have a point James. The cave men spewed a lot of mercury and sulfur too. ;P

Its becoming warmer on Mars too. And almost all of their ice is now gone. How did we pollute them?

I gues Mother Nature on mars is just a little meaner than Mother Nature here on earth. I am glad we have such control over our earth and its climate. Its amazing how we have stopped all the volcanos from erupting because we know that when a major eruption occurs that it emits more greenhouse gases then every car could in 100 years. I cannot wait to send money to the UN so they can use it to control those volcanos that may not want to cooperate. Whew!!

OMFG, the pinheads and their comparison to Mars. ITS A DIFFERENT PLANET YOU DOLTS!.

See?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

DIFFERNT PLANET. DIFFERENT ORBIT. DIFFERENT CHEMISTRY. DIFFERENT JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Sheesh, the fact that these people's brains have enough processing power to maintain respiration is astonishing.

Are climate-denialists trolling around in packs now? Maybe you geniuses should have gone to the IPCC meetings - I am sure that your bumper-sticker logic would have convinced them that their PhDs don't hold water compared to your silly tongue in cheek. Who knows, maybe your incredibly educational wise-cracks may finally become standard fare at university, and then we will have scientifists and scientific organizations that we can ALL find funny! ;) :D ;) :D

Oh, and James, you wonderfully observant pinnacle of human evolution. Know anything about the earth's orbit? How it is not a perfect circle and how it changes over a 10,000 span? How that makes ICE AGES?

Doomed I tell you, we're all doomed to be dragged down by these types.

yeah those first three people seem to have very similar ideas, in fact each post is 7 minutes apart, the same person maybe posting 3 times with 3 different identities? Just speculation but really, you rarely see 3 bonehead responses in a row especially regarding something so important and alarming.

News, everybody! Overnight, in Bali the US delegation did a 180 and agreed to participate in the post Kyoto framework. All that Exxon lobbying money for naught, except it bought some nice McMansions for PR people. This message thread may be one of the LAST existing examples of a coordinated denialist campaign seen in its wild state!

I will look into carbon mitigation for some CO2 I will be releasing from a bottle of champagne later today. Good on the truth!

Oh no, don't count them out now. This is just what the pathological cranks and dedicated contrarians wanted. This proves the global cabal and shadow one world order, under the secret leadership of Gore and the brownshirts at Greenpeace, have taken the planet hostage under the guise of AGW.

Now these pinheads have a full blown rebellion to plan! :D

Willy,

I guess they're free to try, I guess. There are always misfits who need a forlorn cause so they can feel unique.

Please explain since the arctic ice cap looked like this ( http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=11&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=11&sy=1985 ) this summer, why didn't global see level rise? And where are all those hurricane's that are supposed to come from global sea-level temperature increases? If all the ice on earth melts and no on notices is global warming that big a deal? BTW I live in Kansas.

'Please explain since the arctic ice cap looked like this ( http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=11&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=11&sy=1985 ) this summer, why didn't global see level rise?'
1) Global sea level rise is predominantly due to ice melting over land and flowing into the sea and due to thermal expansion of water as water temperatures rise. Arctic sea ice melting has little, if anything, to do with global sea level rises. Arctic sea ice melting is an indicator of global warming rates. When people talk about ice melts leading to sea level rises, they are basically talking about ice melting over Greenland, Antarctica, and mountain glaciers.
2)Who says global sea levels didn't rise this year? They have been rising each and every year for many years now - including this past year. And each year, the rise seems to be larger than the previous years.
'And where are all those hurricane's that are supposed to come from global sea-level temperature increases?'
1)Global warming is predicted to lead predominantly to more intense hurricanes, with only minor increases in number of hurricanes. There isn't predicted to be large increases in numbers, only in intensity.
2)Hurricane patterns are variable. Like all other weather. Some years there will be more hurricanes than others. Some years - like the Katrina year - are blockbusters, and other years are more quiet. But on average, the yearly number of hurricanes is expected to grow slightly and the average intensity per hurricane considerably.
3)Living in Kansas, you do not experience hurricanes. So you will not experience hurricanes that hit the US coast. You say that you watch TV and know that this year there weren't that many hurricanes affecting America? Well, being well-informed as you are, you should then know about all of the hurricanes and cyclones that hit other parts of the world this year causing massive damage. Or do only the hurricanes and cyclones that hit the southeastern US count in your book?
'If all the ice on earth melts and no on notices is global warming that big a deal?'
1)If all the ice on earth melts, then everyone on the planet will notice. It will flood large areas of the planet, displacing many hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Your house may not go under water, but it may well end up being flooded with refugees. Ask Houston city what if feels like to be flooded with refugees when some other city gets flooded with water.
2)Global warming will have numerous very negative consequences. Global sea level rises and hurricanes are just two of a long list. Even Kansas will feel the heat in one way or other.

Wow. I hope I'm not a dreaded "denialist", but the science better be accurate on this one. It is a pretty drastic prediction, no? Tell me, what happens when the Arctic Ice Cap is still around in 2013 or 2030 or 2300? Could a prediction like this possibly turn more people into "denialists"? I believe it does nothing for the cause of those of us concerned for our planet and it might very well damage it.

I'll use an example to illustrate this unfortunate "prediction recoil effect": Mark Riesner's Cadilac Desert, which I highly recomend as a comprehensive history of water use in the West. Where Riesner goes off the rails is he gets into the fruitless business of prediction. As I recall, he predicted that the Ogalala aquifer that lies beneath Oklahoma and Texas would be dry by 1998. Didn't happen. He also said that Canada would emerge as a superpower in he 21st century because they control the largest portion of accessable fresh water in the world. Hard to believe that one as well. Riesner's arguments in Cadillac Desert are strong ones made weak by his forays into sueth-saying, which is a shame.

The main problem with playing Nostradomus is that when you inevitably end up being really wrong a few times, people have a tendency to ignore your future rantings. It's just human nature. A better route would be to effectively communicate how much better this world will be when we are weened from the oil-teet and we are living in a sustainable fashion. That'll do the trick without scaring the diapers off your children with bold predictions that help you raise research dollars, but fail to be correct.

Perhaps it is just the summers that are hotter. Looking at September on the sea ice levels you see that the pack ice is noticeably smaller in area as time goes forward. However, when you look at post winter levels in say March:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=11&fy=2007&sm=03&sd=11&sy=1985

You should notice that sea ice levels are relatively the same as time goes forward.

How then does this simple fact play into the theory of Global Warming?

Furthermore, why is the antarctic sea ice growing while the arctic sea ice melting...especially if the whole globe is warming? http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice

Is it possible to explain the north pole melting while the south pole is freezing through another theory than global warming? A better theory? I think so. Let's not get so stuck on Global Warming that we ignore the facts and start another Inquisition in our eagerness to do "the right thing".

Oh and Katrina wasn't significantly more powerful than any of the other large storms of this century...it happened to occur next to a city below sea level with faulty levees and a terribly corrupt governmental system which did not have an adequate plan to deal with such an event.

'It is a pretty drastic prediction, no?'
---2013 may well be too 'aggressive' a prediction, as is clearly mentioned in the article. 2030 doesn't sound so 'aggressive'.
'Tell me, what happens when the Arctic Ice Cap is still around in 2013 or 2030 or 2300? Could a prediction like this possibly turn more people into "denialists"? I believe it does nothing for the cause of those of us concerned for our planet and it might very well damage it.'
1)The Arctic Ice Cap will still be around in 2100. How can this be possible when I have already stated that 2030 sounds reasonable? Because we are talking about the extent of summer ice melts - not winter ice cover, which will still exist.
2)If society manages to fix the problems contributing to global warming, then hopefully the current trends will be halted and reversed. And if it halted fast enough and reversed enough, maybe the current predictions will not come to pass in their current form. (Please don't be so self-cynical to think that I am not aware that past emissions will continue warming the planet for a good time to come.) Scientists also warned in their time about the deaths of lakes, rivers and forests due to acid rain (caused by sulfur emissions) and the global cooling trends being caused by sulfur emissions, and these scientists made predictions of what would occur in future if those trends caused by continued unfettered sulfur continued. Predictions also were made about the size of the ozone hole due to emissions of ozone-destroying chemicals. Do we have the gigantic ozone hole in the sky that was predicted? NO. Is this because the scientists were wrong? NO. It was because CFCs were banned worldwide. Society took the predictions seriously and acted upon them. The same goes for drastically reducing sulfur emissions through bans and regulation. Nevertheless, I have heard climate denialists use this as an example of how climate scientists are typically wrong: the ozone predictions were wrong so people should get off the global warming predictions. The global cooling predictions were wrong so people should get off the global warming predictions. Etc. Denialists are good at taking facts out of context and putting them into their own surrealist context. And there will always be denialists as their will always be people who have interests to protect. Do you think there weren't people in their day saying that the ozone predictions would never come to pass and that the scientists were simply wrong? What do you think those denialists are saying now? It probably goes something like this: 'We told you so.'
3)Predictions like this will not turn educated people into denialists. People who are educated enough will understand that predictions are made within a context. In the current context, it is predicted that current trends will continue as they have been in the past decades. That current context is one of unfettered GHGs emissions, deforestation, ocean warming and acidification, etc. Change the context, by drastically reducing GHGs and massive reforestation for instance, and the trends based on that context will change. Educated individuals will understand this simply fact. They suddenly won't turn into denialists because valid scientific predictions don't come to pass. Just like you don't have educated people today denying that the ozone predictions of the past were inaccurate.
4)There will always be people on the fringe who have quirky ideas about reality. How many people are out there that believe UFOs exist and have been 'observing' us for a long time? Probably as many as the number of current global warming denialists. These UFO people will continue believing their theories no matter what science and scientists tell them. And they may very well be able to convince any number of people of their UFO theories. Should scientists start worrying about the scientific studies they do and the predictions or assessments they arrive at due to those studies in order to make sure that they don't adversely lead more people to believe in UFOs? So why should we adopt such an attitude for climate denialists? Intelligent people will not take info, research data, assessments, predictions, etc. out of context and place it into distorted surrealist belief patterns to reinforce those surrealistic belief patterns. Society should not cater its science to appease the 'intellectual' fringes. It does nothing positive for the well-being of the planet or of society.
'I'll use an example to illustrate this unfortunate "prediction recoil effect": Mark Riesner's Cadilac Desert' which I highly recomend as a comprehensive history of water use in the West. Where Riesner goes off the rails is he gets into the fruitless business of prediction. As I recall, he predicted that the Ogalala aquifer that lies beneath Oklahoma and Texas would be dry by 1998. Didn't happen. He also said that Canada would emerge as a superpower in he 21st century because they control the largest portion of accessable fresh water in the world. Hard to believe that one as well. Riesner's arguments in Cadillac Desert are strong ones made weak by his forays into sueth-saying, which is a shame.'
---Scientists do not really write books for the general public. They do research and write research papers which are submitted to journals and magazines for peer review. When research scientists do write books, they are not meant for consumption by the general public. They are highly technical and detailed and focus on a very specific field or topic. When a scientist does write a book for the general public, the book is usually NOT 'scientific'. Scientific books written by scientists do NOT have names like 'Cadillac Desert'. The book titles are usually so boring that you fall asleep reading just the title. From what you say about the book, the book does not appear to be a scientific book nor does the author sound as if he is a research scientist. Why do you compare the predictions of expert research scientists with those of non-scientists? It is really highly inappropriate. What if some non-scientist wrote that the moon was going to crash into Earth in 2010, and it didn't happen? Would you also go around preaching this as evidence of some 'prediction recoil effect.' You don't find this logic somewhat...illogical? I remember all the Y2K hype that WASN'T coming out of the mouths of scientists; that didn't cause some kind of 'prediction recoil effect' where I suddenly started questioning the validity of predictions made by true scientists. Why does it cause 'recoil' in you? Maybe you are more 'democratic' in your beliefs and think that everyones' beliefs on any issue are as valid as anyone else's, no matter the education, experience, and research levels (and mental intelligence) of those different individuals.
'The main problem with playing Nostradomus is that when you inevitably end up being really wrong a few times, people have a tendency to ignore your future rantings. It's just human nature. '
---Nostradamus, 'unique' way of putting it. Society pays scientists to do research for a reason. And often times those reasons are to gather information and analyze that information to provide society some idea of where society is heading. Many scientists are paid to predict for our well-being. Society pays scientists to predict all the time in all fields so that society can plan now and take actions now to steer society this way or that. Predictions are a fundamental part of human civilization. It is within our species to predict. All of us do it all the time, from individuals to organizations, institutions, govt. bodies, states, towns, countries, international bodies, etc. You think meteorologists don't predict the weather for our benefit? OPEC doesn't predict? You think the Pentagon doesn't predict? Or the State Dept.? White House? IMF? World Bank? The Fed? Private banks? Companies? Individuals with mortgages? I guess we should all stop playing Nostradamus because if we are ever wrong then we have to worry about the fringe ignoring our 'rantings.' You've convinced me, I'm going to tell my wife that we are no longer going to save any money for retirement because we may die tomorrow. She definitely won't think that is a 'ranting.'
'A better route would be to effectively communicate how much better this world will be when we are weened from the oil-teet and we are living in a sustainable fashion.'
---The best way to get smokers to quit is to show them that smoking causes lung cancer and to have a doctor tell them that they will die within five years if they continue smoking. Because if you simply tell a smoker that: this world would be a better place if you don't smoke and your overall well-being would be better if you don't smoke, they WILL ignore you and label your talk wishy-washy, airy-fairy nonsense. As people do all the time to people who can't back up their abstract notions with scientific facts, assessments and predictions.
'That'll do the trick without scaring the diapers off your children with bold predictions...'
---I'm sorry to inform you that that won't do the trick. The ozone problem was reversed by explicitly pointing out the facts and the future trend and making it clear what the consequences would be for mankind. You are asking society to walk through a pitch-black forest without a flashlight - and the reason you use: because sometimes the flashlight goes out!
'that help you raise research dollars, but fail to be correct.'
A cynical attempt to discredit scientific researchers and their work. This statement is as cynical and just as valid: We should stop listening to your arguments because you are being paid to waste our time by fruitlessly trying to somehow get people to stop worrying about the consequences of global warming

'Furthermore, why is the antarctic sea ice growing while the arctic sea ice melting...especially if the whole globe is warming? http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice'
1)Increases in precipitation due to warmer air temps have been shown to lead to increasing Antarctic sea ice.
2)The whole globe is warming but that does not logically mean that there will be uniform levels of warming throughout the world and uniform impacts throughout the world. There are significant differences between the equator and the poles. Just like there are significant differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic. The fact that you get a fever doesn't mean that every part of your body will experience the exact same conditions and symptoms. Global warming is having different impacts on different parts of the planet - which is really the only logical thing to conclude.
'Is it possible to explain the north pole melting while the south pole is freezing through another theory than global warming? A better theory?'
---I think you are confusing the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. Many people use the terms interchangeably, but in scientific investigation they are two distinct things. A hypothesis is an untested reasoning of cause and effect. A theory is a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested and in which the data gathering, testing, and analysis confirm the validity of the hypothesis. Futhermore, I would go on to say that you are confusing the concept of 'theory' with that of 'fact.' A theory is a cause and effect explanation that has been tested and proved. A fact is simply something known to be true, an undeniable piece of information. Global warming is a FACT. Measures have been taken for many decades now throughout all points of the planet. They clearly show that the planet is heating up. Global warming is not a theory - it does not establish a cause and effect. The greenhouse effect is a theory; increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are trapping more and more solar heat leading to global warming. Solar flaring causing our current global warming is a hypothesis. You have to rephrase your question for it to make any sense. I would like to address the point you are trying to make here, but it is impossible to address a point that is not made.
'I think so. Let's not get so stuck on Global Warming that we ignore the facts and start another Inquisition in our eagerness to do "the right thing".'
---As I said, global warming is not a theory. It is a fact. Maybe you mean to say 'Greenhouse Effect' rather than 'Global Warming'? Or maybe you are referring to the 'anthropomorphic emissions causing the greenhouse effect' theory? In my opinion, you must be referring to 'anthropomorphic emissions causing greenhouse' theory because that is the only one of those things that is still very slightly (less than 10%) in doubt. Global warming is a scientific fact. And the greenhouse effect is a proven theory.
'Oh and Katrina wasn't significantly more powerful than any of the other large storms of this century...'
---Interesting way of putting it: 'Just a little bigger than the very biggest we've had in the past eight years. No big deal.'
'it happened to occur next to a city below sea level with faulty levees and a terribly corrupt governmental system which did not have an adequate plan to deal with such an event.
1)This statement is absolutely correct. And I see that you are trying to somehow downplay previous statements I made about the Houston-New Orleans connection. But I made those statements in reference to a question posed about what would happen if all the ice on the planet melted, and my answer was that many areas of the planet THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY BELOW SEA LEVEL would suffer a similar fate as that of New Orleans; and that many other places would then suffer the fate of having to deal with those refugees. That is not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is how much ice will melt and how quickly. So your comments about New Orleans being below sea level, having faulty levees, corruption and inadequate plans are irrelevant and misguided.
2)As an aside, New Orleans levees were built in their day to withstand a category 4 hurricane, which was considered to be the strongest level the city would ever statistically face. Errors in construction and poor maintenance and renovation dropped the level of defence of the levee system from 4 to an effective 3. Even if the levees had been properly maintained, Katrina was a CATEGORY 5 hurricane. It would still probably have cut through the levees, causing massive damage and much death and the total evacuation of the city. That is what happens when there is no stability - if things are constantly changing (like increasing global temps. or increasing hurrican intensity) then you can not build to the future. Because whatever you build now to deal with a hurricane 4 storm will need to be rebuilt tomorrow to deal with hurricane 5 storms and houses built to deal with 90 degree weather will then need to be modified or rebuilt to deal with 105 degree weather.

Houston you are doing a great job of explaining these things. Thank you. There are things that lay people cannot understand about the climate because it is a very complex subject.

As to why the Antarctic isn't melting like the Arctic: First of al,l it is melting..........just not nearly as much. A few reasons are that the Arctic is an ice sheet on water and it is only six feet thick. It was measured this summer and found to be only three feet thick in many places. (We hear much about the sea ice extent, but don't forget that its thickness has halved since the 50s too, meaning there isn't much further it has to go from the Sept. minimum of this year to be gone in the summer)The Antarctic is two miles thick and a hugely larger mass of ice. Its mass is one of the reasons that the warming doesn't affect it as much.

Another reason is that being two miles thick means that the altitude is around 10,000 feet and you know how much colder it is at that height. The warming of the planet will be felt the least there. It is actually the coldest place on earth and it will warm the least.

Also, being on a continent, the ice in Antarctica does not have the water (that is above freezing) just below it.

I think that's enough to understand the difference but there may be other reasons.

KISS. The sun heats the earth. When the sun gets hotter, the earth gets hotter. When the sun gets cooler, the earth cools down. That's how it has been working and I suspect that's how it will continue to work. Carbon dixoide levels have varied greatly through eons of earth's existence and have not correlated terribly well with global temperatures. What info is available on solar activity correlates a great deal more. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. Arctic sea ice has shrank more than once in the past and recovered from it. By the way, warming of the earth's atmosphere is not what causes polar ice melting, but rather warming of the oceans. The oceans store heat and it will take a few years for them to cool down after the last, very active, solar cycle (among other things) heated them up.

'The sun heats the earth. When the sun gets hotter, the earth gets hotter. When the sun gets cooler, the earth cools down. That's how it has been working and I suspect that's how it will continue to work.'
---1)Yes, as the sun puts out more energy, the earth receives more solar energy and gets hotter. However, recent studies to test whether solar flaring is causing current global warming have determined that our current global warming is not due to increased solar flaring. During much of the past century, there was a constant mild increase in solar energy output. But this changed by the 70s when the situation began to reverse; since then the solar output has been steadily DECREASING. Yet over the past 30 years, Earth has seen a STEADILY ACCELERATING INCREASE in global temps. The recent conclusions of the IPCC were that anthropomorphic GHG emissions were 13 times more responsible for current global warming than solar flaring.
2)Even if over the past 30 years, solar energy output had increased, leading to greater global warming, the greenhouse effect would still be in play. The more GHGs being put into the atmosphere, the more this would increase this effect. Just like a greenhouse, the more sun energy coming in, the more sun energy staying in. On a very sunny day, a small greenhouse can severly overheat if windows are not opened; on cloudy days, less energy gets in so there is
less heat accumulating. Even if solar output had been slowly increasing over the past decades (WHICH IT WASN'T), high levels of anthropomorphic emissions would have led to exponential higher global warming. We are lucky that over the past few decades, solar output has been DECREASING; otherwise, global warming would be much much worse than now.

'Carbon dixoide levels have varied greatly through eons of earth's existence and have not correlated terribly well with global temperatures.'
---1) The greenhouse effect theory is well-established and proven. Global temperature levels fall and rise in almost perfect synchronicity with CO2 concentrations with insignificantly minor deviations. There is more than abundant scientific research data to prove this. Here is chart to illuminate you since you seem a bit confused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
2)The earth's temp. is determined by a large number of factors, such as the concentrations of differing GHGs, solar output, earth's orbit, etc. These other factors will affect the correlation patterns between CO2 concentrations and global temps. YET NEVERTHELESS with all these differing factors contributing to global temps., scientific data establishes a crystal clear correlation between the two. This makes it abundantly obvious that CO2 concentrations have always played, and continue to play, a key role in determining the rise and fall of global temps.

'What info is available on solar activity correlates a great deal more.'
---Yes there is a correlation. But you go out of your way to deceive. This correlation is not more significant than the correlation between CO2
concentrations and global temps, and more importantly, that correlation COMPLETELY ENDS starting in the mid 70s. After that time, while solar energy output DECREASES, global temps INCREASE significantly. Beginning in the 70s, your 'correlation' no longer exists. The most oft mentioned scientific research that shows such a correlation (http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf) states: 'During the last 30 years the solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.'
Here's a graph to illuminate you since you seem a bit confused: http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

'Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself.'
---I don't take your word for it. I did check the research myself. Either you are confused, or you are purposefully trying to confuse.

'Arctic sea ice has shrank more than once in the past and recovered from it.'
---The planet has been hit by massive asteroids before too, and the planet recovered as well; however, the dinosaurs didn't recover - they were eliminated. If another asteroid like that were to threaten Earth today, humanity would attempt to stop it - no matter how 'natural' asteroids hitting Earth is and how true it is that the planet will survive (even if we don't). Global warming threatens the well-being of human civilization. According to the IPCC, global warming is due to anthropomorphic emissions (over 90% probability). There is no reason why we should allow an unnatural warming of the globe to occur that will end up having large negative consequences on all of us. Just like we would go out of our way to stop a devastating asteroid from hitting Earth, we should do what we can to stop the unnatural and unnecessary warming of the planet.

'By the way, warming of the earth's atmosphere is not what causes polar ice melting, but rather warming of the oceans.'
---By the way, the greenhouse effect leads to warming of the earth's atmosphere which in turn leads to the warming of the oceans. And for your info, BOTH of them 'cause' polar ice melting.

'The oceans store heat and it will take a few years for them to cool down after the last, very active, solar cycle (among other things) heated them up.'
---Yes, the oceans store much heat and take years for them to cool down once global atmospheric temps begin to decrease, but scientific research has clearly shown that ocean temps throughout the world have continued to INCREASE even after solar energy output started DECREASING in the 70s. Nice try to confuse
things though.

'KISS'
---I love KISS. I preach it all the time. Unfortunately, the concept only applies to man-made product design to make it more convenient for humans to manipulate objects. This concept does NOT apply to an understanding of science. Maybe this confusion is what leads climate denialists to be in a perpetual state of confusion about climate science, S.

"Maybe this confusion is what leads climate denialists to be in a perpetual state of confusion about climate science, S."

Houston, don't be confused yourself about the deniers and their reasons.

Letter to the World from the Exxon/Halliburton Administration

To the people of the world, we must apologize for our greedy actions in allowing the status quo to continue. You see, back in the beginning of the 20th Century as the industrialists were beginning to make millions of dollars off of the labor of the working class, they actually had no idea of the problems they were creating for the climate. It was truly an honest mistake, and we will give them that.

Well, now, at this time in history, with the looming problems of 9 billion in population by 2050, we don't feel any compulsion to change our money grubbing ways. We have been trying to think of ways to reduce the human population for decades, but we now see that it is quite simple. We just sit back and let water shortages occur (which will be the first crisis) and then droughts will diminish the food production so that millions will die and most likely begin fighting for resources amongst themselves and reducing the population to levels that we (the super rich) may have a chance to survive against. We get the reduction of population without firing a single shot. You see, we don't need the working class any longer, with the advent of computers and robots. So, it is a gift from heaven for us.

We certainly are not going to spend a dime on trying to slow the climate change that is ahead of the world. Rather, we look forward to it. We should be able to survive with our gigantic bank accounts and if you don't have one, we feel sorry for you. We will talk like we want to help, but in the end you will see that we will fight any changes to the status quo tooth and nail.

We have made soooo much money that even if the dollar collapses, we will still be millionaires on the world market, and we don't have much to worry about.

Yeah, the climate may get a bit nasty for a century or two, but that is something that we can live with as we have luxurious homes all around the world and private jets to get us to where it is livable.

And don't be too harsh on your Congresspeople as they are all in need of our campaign contributions to stay in office, and they are excellent liars and obfuscators or we wouldn't have given them the money.

************

That's the mindset we are up against, and it leads to cannibalism boys and girls.....and your boys and girls, and their boys and girls. It has happened many times in the past and they are going to allow it to happen again because they feel that that is their most economical solution.

I'm wondering.

How much the arctic ice melts will have a lot to do with how much circulation there is between the water in the arctic, water near freezing, and water that is coming from more tropical locations, some degrees warmer than freezing. Imagine the world's oceans as a glass of water with an ice cube in it; the ice melts a lot faster the more you stir the glass. A larger ice mass will restrict the flow of currents more than a smaller ice mass. So, as the ice melts, won't more thermal energy be transferred from areas below the arctic to the arctic? We may have just passed a tipping point with very little fanfare.

I think it will be very difficult to predict what changes in weather patterns would result from substantially reduced arctic ice, but I think it would be a reasonably safe bet that there will be changes. If you think changes in weather patterns are easily adapted to with settings on your home's thermostat, find a farmer and ask them if unusual weather is good for the crops. BTW, I'm also from Kansas.

We will know soon enough if 2013 is too aggressive an estimate. Myself, I'm trying to imagine what happens if/when the ice sheet looses its last solid anchoring point to land. If it melts from south to north, it's bound to happen eventually; the north pole is a long way from any land. Will it spin around in place or drift into another land mass? Now that's a navigation hazard. Maybe it will just drift into Greenland as it melts.

hello all and good day.
My name is adam. 0my specialty is numbers (not english so please forgive bad spelling). Anyway, I calculate for a living. Increase, decrease, rates, and many other equations with funny symbols that really shouldn't be numbers, but they are and I think it's fun. I'm actually working on statistical probability prediction for the powerball lottery.

I have recently started to follow this climate thing. most of the time I'm to intere1sted in numbers too even follow the news. I decided that since everyone is so up in arms maybe instead of offering an opinion I could o1ffer a number or two.

After examining the following
1. actual summer and winter arctic ice volume (km^2),
2.rates of change since 1950(km^2/yr)
3.loss of mass in greenland ice (km^3)
4. rate of ocean level increase (mm/yr)
5. actual ocean level increa6se (mm)
6. increase in air temp at different lattitudes(F)
7.C02 levels (ppm)
8. rate or C02 change (ppm/yr)
9. increase in speed of glaciers in:
-Greenland
-Antarctic
10. rate of loss of moutain glaciers (metric tons/yr)

I have been able to conclud4e the following. Just keep one thing in mind this is just a suggestion and should not be taken personally.

Whoever said we past the tipping point was right: more specifically, I was able to narrow it down to some time in the latter half of the first Bush administration (ironic isn't it). many of you might think this sounds a little wierd. I did to, mostly because the ice was fine ba9ck then, but the atmoshere wasn't. As it turns out, the action we see now is a consequence of action we took almost twenty years ago.

I Think of the planet as a person and global warming as a swift kick to the4 crotch.

1. I get kicked
2. I think "I just got kicked"
3. I think "this is really gonna hurt"
4. I start to feel pain
5. I fall over and grab my crotch0 in pain

We are starting to feel the pain of a kick that made contact in the late 80's and we will soon fall over in pain. what worries me is today.

If the late 80's was a kick. The s@ustained industry of America, China, India, and Africa (it's starting) will be the equivalent of a hand grenade in our collective pants. The loss of the ice is not linear(average) or geometric(fast), rather it's exponential(really fast). It's also just the start, hvccI don't even want to think about 2028.edu

I might work with numbers but I'm learning how to live off the land. I'm not even doing it because society pollutes, I'm doing it because in a short time, society will be unable to provide the basic means for survival in an industrial society.

P.S. gold will always have value........get some.