Environment polar observatory

Published on July 25th, 2013 | by Jo Borras

62

The North Pole Has Melted … and I Kinda Want to Vomit

k-bigpic

That navigation buoy is located at the North pole. The actual North pole. Instead of being encased in ice, however, it’s floating in the water. The North pole is now open water. We are a different planet – a planet without polar ice caps.

 

ZOMG! THE NORTH POLE!!

 

I don’t know how you guys feel about it, but the fact that this sort of Santa-drowning North pole cataclysm is happening on my watch – on the very first day of my watch as Gas 2 editor! – and not on Chris‘ has me more than a little apprehensive about the rest of the weekend. So, yeah – have fun out there. Maybe punch a climate change denier in the mouth for me, while you’re at it. You know, for me.

Also: Mike Huckabee. Punch that guy right in the neck.

 

Sources: North Pole 90N Observatory, Gawker Media.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I've been involved in motorsports and tuning since 1997, and write for a number of blogs in the Important Media network. You can find me on Twitter, Skype (jo.borras) or Google+.



  • EdselFord

    Santa is singing to Mrs Clause, it’s getting hot in here so take off all your clothes.

  • Bob_Wallace

    That may be a melt pond, not open ocean.

    Not to say that things aren’t bleak up there….

    • Jo Borras

      YOU ARE CORRECT! They’re saying it’s a melt above an ice shelf … that’s breaking up. So, yeah. Better news, but still incredibly bad.

      • Bob_Wallace

        It’s nasty bad.

        Most of the time we see pictures of the ice. What we see is only two dimensions. We don’t see how thin the ice has been getting.

        Here’s a picture of all three dimensions – Volume.

        It’s the remaining volume at the end of each melting season. And there is a line of best fit drawn that gives us an idea of when we see nothing but the stray iceberg in the Arctic Ocean. When all the sea ice will melt out.

        • Jo Borras

          DAMMIT BOB! I was already puking my life out over this – save that kind of thing for when Chris comes back from vacation in a week! He’s a journalist, I’m just a glorified s***-disturber.

          Also: I need puppies.

          • Bob_Wallace

            We’re watching a train wreck unlike any train wreck humans have ever seen before.

            The melting of the Arctic Ocean is by far the largest scale geological event to happen while we walked on two legs.

            And we caused it.

            We’re some powerful puppies. (And we have shat our bed.)

          • failhard

            I can’t wait. Mom’s gonna fix it all soon.

  • Wallace

    Huckabee said that the Volt is a car that does not run. I have 7500 miles on mine that says he is a liar. Yeah, punch him an extra one for me.

    • Jo Borras

      It can’t be me. I’d never punch the man, honestly. I’d bi*** slap the s*** out of him, sure – but punch? I mean, he does PRETEND to be a man of God. That counts for something, in my book.

      • topkill

        You said the key word here: He PRETENDS to be a man of God. But his actions are the typical fake Christian actions of hate. The people I know that truly follow the example of Christ (you know, that guy who championed the poor, loved children, the sick and even felt a prostitute deserved help and respect)….and they just help their fellow man.

        Huckabee is one of those people who corrupts the Christian church and spends his time spreading hatred of gays (you know…a subject that Jesus felt so strongly about that he NEVER EVEN MENTIONED IT!). But disgusting people like Huckabee run around hating in the name of their “god of love”.

        Jesus would vomit if he met Huckabee and people like him.

        • topkill

          And of course, I’m not just talking about his hatred of gays, but of ANYONE who doesn’t agree with him. He’s a hate filled scum.
          So, I’ll gladly punch him in the neck :-)

    • GJPinks

      The Volt sales numbers are still trailing The Edsel, even with all the government and GE fleet purchases.

  • Instinct

    It seems obvious that you don’t know the “North Pole cam” isn’t actually AT the North Pole. It’s a drift buoy. It sits on the ice pack and moves with it. It’s currently about 350 miles SOUTH of the North Pole. See this update:

    “UPDATE: I received a reply via email from Roger Anderson, who is one of the webcam scientists at the Universtiy of Washington. I had asked him if the media was using the webcams that were NOT at the North Pole, but rather drifting southward. He replied: “Yes, they are. The approximate position of the webcams today (obtained from PAWS Buoy 819920) is 07/25/1500Z 84.773°N 5.415°W.” This is even further south than I had placed the buoy, because the data I had was one week old. This puts the webcam at approximately 350 miles south of the North Pole, closer to Greenland than Santa Claus! So no worries, folks, the North Pole is not melting.”

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/did-the-media-just-prove-north-pole-is-not-melting/15739869

    Map of buoys: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/pngs/DriftMap.png

    • Bob_Wallace

      You are correct. The buoy in question is a few hundred miles from the exact spot we call the North Pole.

      But the distance is tiny in the greater scheme of things. The North Pole region, that area north of the 85th latitude in which this buoy is floating, is melting as is all the Arctic Ocean.

      There are plenty melt ponds north of this buoy’s location.

      We almost certainly won’t see a total meltout of the Arctic Ocean this year, but the odds are very high we will within the next five years.

      The only reason we wouldn’t see an ice-free Arctic Ocean before 2020 would be that some brand new weather pattern sets in that stalls the melting for a few more years.

      It looked like the early year fracturing of the thin ice this year might have created a new period of clouds which could stall melting. But now that we’re well into the melt season the 2013 melt is keeping pace with the 2012 record melt, only a couple good melt days behind.

      Well, I suppose we could get hit by a meteor or experience a series of volcanoes which throw enough stuff up into the atmosphere to block a lot of sunlight for a while. But these would be only delaying events.

      Your source might produce accurate weather information, but it would be best to view it as inaccuclimate if they publish stuff like this piece.

      • Instinct

        If you slam Accuweather for publishing this story then do you slam all of the news outlets from HuffPo to CBS News to Livescience for publishing the original erroneous “news” that claimed the North Pole had melted? Or is it okay in your mind because the buoy is 350 miles south and that’s ” tiny in the greater scheme of things”?

        Did you read the comment from one of the scientists at the North Pole Environmental Observatory who noted “The formation of melt ponds has always been a key feature of the summer
        season on sea ice. Each summer, solar radiation melts the snow cover
        and 10-50 cm of the sea ice upper surface.” and “The AITP buoy, and subsequently Web
        Camera #2 were placed in a relatively low spot in the ice with a greater
        than average snow thickness, both of which contribute to the formation
        of the melt pond.”

        Facts and accuracy are important.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I follow the Arctic regularly.

          The Arctic Ocean sea ice is melting.

          • Instinct

            That’s funny in your first post you never mentioned that the image wasn’t from the North Pole Bob. Why is that? Here’s a tip for you Bob – the Arctic Ocean sea ice melts in the summer. It does every year. This story doesn’t have anything to do with that issue.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There was no need to point out that the image was in the general area we can “The North Pole” but not at exactly 90 degrees north.

            You keep on trying to find ways to deny reality, Cleo. Twist those facts, twist them hard.

          • Instinct

            So now 350 miles away is “in the general area”? So is Los Angeles in the “general area” of Death Valley? I mean that’s less than 300 miles so I suppose we should just assume there’s no difference between them, right Bob?

            Sorry you don’t feel that accuracy is important. You accuse me of “twisting facts” when you’re just fine with an inaccurate report.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Well, yes LA is in the general area of Death Valley if you’re in Europe and talking about how hot it is in So Cal.

            Accuracy is important. But we both know that accuracy is not your agenda.

        • Meli Matanatoto

          Even if the buoy is 360 miles from the north pole that little pond is too close to the north pole for my comfort…that is a great evidence of climate change..

  • Pingback: People did not like it here

  • Pingback: Lee Grenci’s lesson | People did not like it here

  • Pingback: Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, warned the effects will be felt worldwide. | People did not like it here

  • Pingback: CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More.

  • Jim Steele

    The North Pole is not open water. The picture showed a melt pond that has since dried up. Surface melt ponds are very common in the summer. Here’s how it looks July 29

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/np_cam2_7-29-13.jpg

    • Bob_Wallace

      Specifically, the melt pond drained.

      Now, while this was mistaken for open water it’s not exactly that things aren’t getting all melty at the North Pole.

      Here’s a crop out of today’s University of Bremen’s ice concentration chart. Greenland is at the center bottom, Canada along the left side – to get oriented.

      The grey circle in the North Pole. Satellites can take data in that small area due to their orbits.

      The light green and yellow area inside the 85th latitude line – that’s ocean with only 50% (green) to 75% (yellow) ice. There is a good deal of ocean showing through quite close the North Pole. When one gets down to 50% concentration it’s kind of ice cubes floating in the punch bowl.

      The only 100% ice is colored the deeper purple color. As one can see even right at the North Pole the ice is not 100% ice, but sort of a thick slushy.

      That’s what’s up. And it ain’t purty….

      • Jim Steele

        Bob, Each year the Antarctic gains more sea ice but then loses that ice more rapidly than the Arctic. The Arctic still retains more sea ice than the Antarctic. So why the big deal? There is good scientific evidence to suggest the increasing Antarctic sea ice is a better indicator of climate change due to the more numerous confounding factors affecting the Arctic and that as the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillations shift to their cool phases, Arctic ice will increase. I wrote an essay on this for a skeptical website. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/why-antarctic-sea-ice-is-the-better-climate-change-indicator/

        • Bob_Wallace

          One can’t compare the Arctic and the Antarctic. One is mainly an ocean, the other mainly a continent.

          All the Antarctic sea ice is seasonal. It all melts out each year.

          http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

          So, what should we make of your posts?

          I suspect we should realize that you engage in dishonest argument in the defense of climate change denial.

          “The Arctic still retains more sea ice than the Antarctic.” Well, duh. That’s like saying smoking won’t kill you, if you get killed by a bus first.

          “There is good scientific evidence to suggest the increasing Antarctic sea ice is a better indicator of climate change….”

          I “here” that the winter increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to higher melt rates for both ice shelf and onshore ice which is increasing the amount of fresh water in the Antarctic Ocean.

          Since fresh and salt water don’t rapidly mix these layers of fresh water, with their higher freeze point, turn into ice sooner and at higher temperatures than salt water.

          I also “here” that warmer ocean currents are eating away at the bottom sides of the Antarctic ice shelves. As those shelves melt onshore ice will be released to slide into the now warmer Antarctic water.

          Melting will come to the South Pole continent of Antarctica than it has come to the North Pole Arctic Ocean, but it’s showing up and will almost certainly accelerate.

          • Jim Steele

            Bob when you say “I suspect we should realize that you engage in dishonest argument in the defense of climate change denial.” besides being insulting, you clearly show you did not read or understand the science which I presented. When you say “I “here” that the winter increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to higher melt rates for both ice shelf and onshore ice which is increasing the amount of fresh water in the Antarctic Ocean.” you clearly accepted that without any critical thought and reveal your blind faith. SImply look at NASA’s salinity maps to see the Arctic sea water is much fresher and therefore if anywhere the ice should being growing it is the Arctic.http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/591162main_pia14786-43_full.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/aquarius/multimedia/gallery/pia14786.html&h=1755&w=2340&sz=456&tbnid=TIwzP7aSiydDBM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=126&prev=/search%3Fq%3Daquarius%2Bsalinity%2Bmap%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=aquarius+salinity+map&usg=__BS4At0pRH77Akp6pg36IChT7oAU=&docid=LPM5lC4vzGv2IM&sa=X&ei=Kdv2UYmIEMni4AOxmoCgAg&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA&dur=136

            Furthermore wherever Antarctic ice has increased such as in the eastern Antarcitc, local temperatures are colder or unchanging, not warmer. Sea ice is only shrinking on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsuala and there temperatures have risen. It takes blind faith to so readily accept hype that “warmer temperatures cause more ice”, but only in the places where a beloved theory can not explain the contradictory evidence.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, Jim, I didn’t read your piece on Tony’s site. I never read anything on that site. Nor do I listen to Fox News, Rush or Glenn.

            And I’m not interested in debating your theory. I’d have to spend too much time looking up every single thing you claimed to be true.

            You’ve shown us what you are. Enjoy your life in denial land.

          • Jim Steele

            Gee Bob, I respond to your claims with observations and provide the referenced scientific papers. You basically stick your finger in your ears and go na na na na – I am not listening, then you feel confident that I am the denier. I spent 25 years studying how climate impacts wildlife and restoring habitat and I suspect I have read at least a few thousand more scientific papers than you have.

            FYI I don’t listen to Rush or Glenn either. All sides of the debate suffer from illusions, and only respectful debate can free us from our own misunderstandings. Your response reminds me of Galileo who asked people to look through his telescope to see how the phases of Venus disproved the earth was at the center theory. The Jesuits were eager to see the heavens and looked and supported Galileo. The Dominicans who had started the scholastic movement based on Aristotle, were threatened by Galileo’s observation because it weakened their political authority so they refused to look. Galileo wrote to Kepler how the most learned simply refused to even look, and only got angry no matter how powerful the evidence was presented. He asked if we should laugh or cry. Your arguments seem to be based not on science but more on protecting your political stance.

            I suggest you heed the motto of the oldest scientific society that Newton once oversaw. Nullius in Verba. Take no one’s word for it.

          • Jim Steele

            Bob, the fact that the Antarctic sea ice is seasonal and melts more rapidly, is exactly why it is a better indicator of the climate. The sea ice in the Arctic goes through cycles caused by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) during which sea ice gets compressed against the shore line forming thicker ice. Other times the winds blow that thick multiyear ice out the Arctic, so the sea ice that reforms is now seasonal ice just like the Antarctic. The consensus from climate scientists is the AO caused below freezing winds to blow the ice out into the Atlantic. Read Rigor, I.G. and J.M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the Age of Sea Ice and Summer Sea Ice Extent, Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 31,

            It is the cycles of thick ice versus thin seasonal ice that people misconstrue as evidence of global warming. In fact before the winds blew the ice away, researchers observed the air temperatures were actually cooling. Read the scientific literature
            Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over
            the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature 361, 335 – 337.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “the fact that the Antarctic sea ice is seasonal and melts more rapidly, is exactly why it is a better indicator of the climate.”

            What a pile.

            A part of the world’s oceans that freezes and thaws every year is a better indication of the climate not changing than is an area that has remained frozen for thousands of years and is now thawing.

            At an alarming rate.

            Pathetic BS, Jim.

          • Jim Steele

            Who says the Arctic remained frozen for thousands of years???? Please reference the scientific paper. Here’s a recent paper Funder, S. et al. (2011) A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach. Science vol. 333, p. 747‑750. They write “Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.

            The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. How’s that for a pile?

          • Bob_Wallace

            I don’t have access to a university library at the moment so I’m unable to look up specific papers. How about we let the NSIDC review the literature for us?

            “We know for sure that at least in the distant past, the Arctic was ice-free.

            Fossils from the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, indicate a temperate climate with ferns and other lush vegetation.

            Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

            The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.

            According to analyses at NASA and NOAA, the past decade has been the warmest in the observational record dating back to the 19th century and the Arctic has been substantially higher than the global average.”

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#summer_ice

            Now, let’s look at the part you quote from the article you read.

            ” reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago”

            Reached a minimum is not the same thing as melted out.

            ” between ~8500 and 6000 ago”

            That’s thousands of years.

            As I said, the Arctic, which has remained frozen for thousands of years is now rapidly melting.

            This is the problem trying to have an intelligent discussion with a denier. They start with a believe then cherry-pick and misrepresent stuff in order to maintain their beliefs.

            Don’t waste your time posting your stuff here, Jim. Stay in the Up zone of reality. You won’t get challenged there.

          • Jim Steele

            Bob says “This is the problem trying to have an intelligent discussion with a denier. They start with a believe then cherry-pick and misrepresent stuff in order to maintain their beliefs.”

            Gee Bob, can we have an intelligent discussion without name calling as if somehow that to proves your point. It just reveals your self righteousness. I posted a few times to show how the cycles have caused times of more open water and less ice several times during the past 4000 years. What we are experiencing is not unusual. Yet you refer to the age of dinosaurs??? We agree that holocene optimum had much less ice but I presented much more recent data.

            Of course a minimum is not the same thing as completely melting out! so whats your point? I linked to a satellite picture of the Arctic ice today and in 1937 to make it easier for you to see the similarities. It certainly doesn’t look like the ice has completely melted out, either now are in 1937.

            In 2012 the Bering Sea ice reached record extent. How does that happen?

            http://news.yahoo.com/bering-sea-sees-surprising-record-ice-cover-185125243.html

          • Bob_Wallace

            It’s still getting cold enough in the winter to free water. And it will for a number more years.

            Ice has three dimensions. That’s an important concept to comprehend.

            “In 2012 the Bering Sea ice reached record extent.”

            Classic denier cherry-picking.

          • Jim Steele

            The surest sign you are out of valid scientific ammunition is the descent into name calling. I have presented numerous documented observations that contradict the notion that recent loss of Arctic ice is due to CO2. Yet every contradiction is treated as a deniers cherry-picking. And you call that intelligent discussion? As Paul Watzlawick said, “The belief that one’s own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions.”

            What will you say if in 10 years the Arctic ice recovers as predicted by the natural oscillations and growing Antarctic sea ice? Based on the evidence from oscillation I’ll bet you whatever you choose that in 10 years the Arctic sea ice will be thicker and more extensive than it is in 2013.

          • Bob_Wallace

            What will I say if in 10 years the Arctic ice recovers as predicted by
            the natural oscillations and growing Antarctic sea ice?

            Hell has frozen over.

          • Jim Steele

            Well actually Bob if you understand the natural cycles affecting the Arctic it has done just that. There was a tremendous warming and sea ice retreat in the 1920s long before CO2 concentrations were significant. Then as the cycle entered the cool phase the Arctic ice increased. Just one of many research studies I can “cherry pick” as you like to say, is by scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory studying Greenland temperatures. They wrote ” We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.” Read.
            Chylek, P., et al. (2006) Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.

          • Bob_Wallace

            ” There was a tremendous warming and sea ice retreat in the 1920s”

            Yep. See the first graph.

            “long before CO2 concentrations were significant”

            Nope, see the second graph.

            Furthermore read up on the period following WWII when we were pumping tremendous amounts of pollutants into that atmosphere via coal-burning. It’s often referred to as the period of “Global Dimming”.

          • Jim Steele

            Actually your 2nd graph proves the point. A massive rise in CO2 yet temperatures inGreenland are no higher. Likewise if you look at nhogenized data the maximum temperatures in the USA are no higher and often lower as in Yosemite.

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=049855&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2012.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMAX&minyear=1893&maxyear=2012

            Most every climate scientist will state that the effects of CO2 before 1950 were not significant. Trying to explain the warming in the 1920s Bengsston (2005) wrote “It seems unlikely that anthropogenic forcing on its own could have caused the warming, since the change in greenhouse gas forcing in the early decades of the twentieth century was only some 20% of the present” They also said “the ongoing present
            warming has just reached the peak value of the 1940s, and this has underpinned some views that even the present Arctic warming is dominated by
            factors other than increasing greenhouse gases (Polyakov and Johnson 2000; Polyakov et al. 2002). You really need access to the library and all of scientific literature.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Here’s the denier argument…

            “It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low

            “Of the rise in temperature during the 20th century, the bulk
            occurred from 1900 to 1940. It was followed by the aforementioned
            cooling trend from 1940 to around 1975. Yet the concentration of greenhouse gases
            was measurably higher in that later period than in the former. That
            drop in temperature came after what was described in the National
            Geographic as ‘six decades of abnormal warmth’.” (James Schlesinger)”

            Here is the conclusion to the Skeptical Science article that will explain it to you.

            You can read the entire article and see the graphs by using the link at the bottom…

            “The “skeptic” logic behind this argument
            is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the
            late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well (note that we’ve discussed the mid-century cooling elsewhere).

            Ultimately while natural forcings can
            account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role
            as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or
            rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.

            But more importantly, we don’t assume
            that the current warming is caused by humans because it’s
            “unprecedented” or faster and larger than previous natural warming
            events. We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that’s what the physical evidence tells us.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

            I didn’t bother editing out the extra line returns because, frankly, you aren’t worth my time.

          • Jim Steele

            Your “Denier” argument sounds pretty good. You keep tossing that word around as if it makes you right, despite contradicting scientific evidence. If recent warming is not higher than the 1940′s then why should we believe CO2 causes every thing? You cite a well known CO2 advocacy website vs my scientific papers but obviously it makes you feel better to believe we are on the eve of destruction.

            The scientific question that many scientists are struggling with is ‘how do we separate natural warming from any thing attributed to CO2′? And if you read the literature most will say it is still not easy to separate the confoundiing factors and most are not as convinced as you.

            For example the world’s record temperature happened in death Valley in 1913. How could that happen? It should spark everyone’s curiosity who is truly interested in ALL the factors that cause climate change. In addition most of the global average is due to a rise in the minimum temperature, not the maximum so we are not over-heating as seen in a century’s worth of temperatures at Death Valley NP. Most of the rise in minimum temperatures can easily be attributed to landscape changes. When we remove vegetation temperatures soar. I am more concerned with the landscape changes which you seem to deny. I guess I can call you a denier too eh? So to show off your climate expertise explain why the Death Valley record happened in 1913 despite low solar activity and low CO2? Why has that record not been exceeded? HInt: you will need to evoke natural factors.

            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image006.png

          • Bob_Wallace

            Tell you what, Jim, you can call me whatever you want. It won’t bother me as I have developed zero respect for your opinion.

            No, that’s not correct. I’ve actually come to regard your opinion as likely 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Sort of a negative respect value.

            As I said earlier, I have no time to give you. If you’d like to see if your ideas hold up take them to Skeptical Science or Real Climate and let people who are knowledgeable in things climate take a look at them.

            Wear your asbestos bloomers….

          • Jim Steele

            Well Bob you are not being truthful again. Just another lame attempt to be hurtful. You have indeed devoted ample time to calling me a stupid denier who can’t recognize reality. You simply don’t have the time to answer honest scientific questions that you disagree with. You would prefer an intellectual tyranny where everyone agrees with you and defile the scientific process. But such is the history of science. John Muir was called an ignorant shepherd. Nobel prize winners Dan Shechtman was called a quasi-scientists and thrown from his research group for simply not recanting an observation. Likewise for Babrara McCintock and “jumping genes or Pruisner and prions. I predict in just 5 years nature will give you an attitude adjustment.

          • Jim Steele

            Here’s some more pathetic “scientific BS”

            “Our data show that from ~6500 to 2600 BP, there were large oscillations in summer sea surface temperatures from 2–4°C cooler than present to 6°C warmer and Sea ice concentrations ranged from 2 months more sea ice to 4 months more open water”

            Mudie, P. (2005) Decadal-scale sea ice changes in the Canadian Arctic and their impacts on humans during the past 4,000 years. Environmental Archaeology, vol. 10,
            p. 113-126.

    • Jim Steele

      The latest update from climate scientists say,

      “While the air temperature hovers right around the freezing point, solar radiation works to melt snow and the upper layer of sea ice.Some of the water drains through cracks down into the Arctic Ocean and the rest forms fresh-water ponds on top of the sea ice with their surfaces slightly above sea level.

      ”That’s just part of summer ice conditions, and as far as we know it always has been,” Morison said.

      “Below the pond was a layer of ice more than 1m thick”

      Morison said from the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle.

      “http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8981314/Buoy-not-showing-global-warming”

  • Pingback: San Diego Loves Green – THE NORTH POLE IS A LAKE RIGHT NOW

  • Pingback: CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More.

  • Jim Steele

    JO says “Maybe punch a climate change denier in the mouth for me, while you’re at it” ???? Your lack of scientific understanding of changes in the Arctic is only superceded by the way deal with difference of opinion.

  • Jim Steele

    Bob Wallace you should check out the old Danish ice maps 1937 was nearly identical today:

    Compare sea charts from August 1937 http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1937/1937_08.jpg

    with yesterday’s 2013 satellite pic

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

    Also from the Los Alamos National Laboratory they wrote:
    “We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature
    increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.

    You can read their whole paper at Chylek, P., et al. (2006) Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.

    Also see the Russian studies about the loss of sea ice and Arctic temperatures from 1920 to 1940 that were also similar to now

    http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm

    They say “The polar ice very often came close to the coast of Iceland in the last century and in the beginning of this century. During 1915–1940 the situation changed: no ice was observed in that region; negligible amounts of polar ice were noticed there only in 1929.”

  • Pingback: Texas is Fracked: 30 Towns Will be Out of Water Because of Fracking

  • Pingback: Insteading | The toughest part of surviving in a post-apocalyptic world is going to be pretending we're not excited about it!

  • Pingback: Polar Ice Caps are Melting, Shipping Lanes are Opening

  • Pingback: Polar Ice Melting Marks Rise in Carbon Dioxide

  • Pingback: New Video Shows 25 Years of Arctic Ice Melt in Seconds

  • Pingback: Gas 2 | Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads.

  • Pingback: Electric Vehicle Concept Could Drive In Floods | CleanTechnica

Back to Top ↑