More Arctic & sea level “worse than we thought” scare stories

Yet, still the data doesn’t support it. As I reported two days ago, the sea level threat just isn’t there. Oh noes! Sea level rising three times faster than expected (again) and we’ve heard it before, right before the 2009 Copenhagen conference. This appears to be nothing more than recycled alarm.

Steve Goddard plotted a telling graph comparing sea level rates:

The image below shows actual sea level rise in blue measured by Envisat, versus the claimed rate of the experts (green)  (15 mm /year.)

Even the University of Colorado Sea Level trend only shows 3 mm per year, not 15mm, as would be required to get the sort of sea level rises they are talking about

From Lund university:

Effects of climate change in the Arctic more extensive than expected

A much reduced covering of snow, shorter winter season and thawing tundra. The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.

Together with Terry Callaghan, a researcher at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Margareta is the editor of the two chapters on snow and permafrost.

“The changes we see are dramatic. And they are not coincidental. The trends are unequivocal and deviate from the norm when compared with a longer term perspective”, she says.

The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. As a consequence, the snow cover in May and June has decreased by close to 20 per cent. The winter season has also become almost two weeks shorter – in just a few decades. In addition, the temperature in the permafrost has increased by between half a degree and two degrees.

“There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.

Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost.

“Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today”, says Margareta Johansson.

The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.

“But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future”, says Margareta Johansson.

Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.

The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. In Canada, the uppermost metres of permafrost will thaw on approximately one fifth of the surface currently covered by permafrost. The equivalent figure for Alaska is 57 per cent. The length of the winter season and the snow coverage in the Arctic will continue to decrease and the glaciers in the area will probably lose between 10 and 30 per cent of their total mass. All this within this century and with grave consequences for the ecosystems, existing infrastructure and human living conditions.

New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, which is approximately twice the increase predicted by the UN’s panel on climate change, IPCC, in its 2007 report. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap. Between 2003 and 2008, the melting of the Arctic icecap accounted for 40 per cent of the global rise in sea level.

“It is clear that great changes are at hand. It is all happening in the Arctic right now. And what is happening there affects us all”, says Margareta Johansson.

The report “Impacts of climate change on snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic” has been compiled by close to 200 polar researchers. It is the most comprehensive synthesis of knowledge about the Arctic that has been presented in the last six years. The work was organised by the Arctic Council’s working group for environmental monitoring (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and will serve as the basis for the IPCC’s fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014.

Besides Margareta Johansson, Torben Christensen from Lund University also took part in the work.

For more information:

Margareta Johansson, Division of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis, Lund University, telephone: 046-2224480, mobile: 070-6842965, email: Margareta.Johansson@nateko.lu.se

Terry Callaghan, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, email: terry_callaghan@btinternet.com

Read more information on the report and The Artic as a messenger for global processes – climate change and pollution conference in Copenhagen where it is being presented today.

About these ads

98 thoughts on “More Arctic & sea level “worse than we thought” scare stories

  1. Scripps is picking up on this non-issue as well:

    http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1155

    “The West Coast of North America has caught a break that has left sea level in the eastern North Pacific Ocean steady during the last few decades, but there is evidence that a change in wind patterns may be occurring that could cause coastal sea-level rise to accelerate beginning this decade.”

  2. Must be time to apply for the next round of Research Grants.

    The scarier the press releases, the more money can be expected to do more “research”.

  3. So the ground covered by the last ice age is now thawing. So it will end up thawed out…just like it was before the ice age. Erm….

  4. This post is based on actual data. Your conclusion that it is alarmist is a strawman claim. The facts are what they are, and they can not be disputed out-of-hand. There is ample supportive evidence available to lead to the conclusion that sea level rise will be a problem sooner, rather than later.

  5. Looking close at the graph, 2010’s minimum was less than 2005’s minimum, 2011’s maximum is less than 2006’s maximum, I see little change at all, but as usual, propaganda never considers such real facts like that, just warped invalid statistics.

  6. If you follow the links then this really seems to be another case of “the best science politics can buy”:

    “Read more information on the report and The Artic as a messenger for global processes – climate change and pollution conference in Copenhagen where it is being presented today.

    May 3 – the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) will hold a workshop entitled Young Scientists‘ Arctic Messages to Policy Makers. The results of the workshop will be reported to the panel discussion on the last day of the Conference.

    Who Should Attend
    Scientists, decision–makers, Ph.D. students, administrators, managers, health care officials, indigenous peoples, representatives of industry and non-governmental organizations.”

    Hmm….

  7. Hugh Pepper,

    If it’s worse than we thought, why is Steve Goddard’s graph not very frightening? The only scary part is the green line – a model projection. But the empirical evidence shows only natural variability.

    Did it ever occur to you that Callaghan and Johannsen are grant-trolling? If not, take another look at that green line.

  8. Hugh Pepper. Can you supply supportive evidence that the claimed rises in sea level and thawing in the Arctic are solely due to CO2 increases? It is that which is the nub of the discussions both here and elsewhere. I am not aware of any empirical evidence for this and would be grateful if you will provide it.

  9. And what is the regression on that plot? It must be pretty bad that you could also put in a negative slope.

  10. “There is ample supportive evidence available to lead to the conclusion that sea level rise will be a problem sooner, rather than later.”

    Man the lifeboats! Women and bedwetters first!

  11. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    ***This post is based on actual data. ***

    What stations were used since 1880 and where can I find the temperature measurements?

  12. Well Hugh since the sea level rise is so dangerous I will make sure that every decade or so I promise to take a single step away from the shore. In this way I should be safe. I will have to be diligent though, that pesky 1.5 mm per year can sneak up on you when you aren’t looking. sarc off

  13. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    This post is based on actual data.

    Try to read it without your AGW glasses on. I noticed the following:

    (1) They suddenly think that a FIVE year long period is sufficient to make any conclusions about long term climate change (probably because if you look at the last 30 years, the current warming in the Arctic looks too similiar to the previous warm period in the 30s and 40s…). Well, then why not look at TEN years? Here’s “proof” that we’re entering a new ice age: RSS global temperatures trends DOWN over the last 10 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

    (2) I’m pretty sure that this: “Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years.” refers to Kaufman et al. 2009, and then it depends on the dubious Yamal data in order to make that claim valid.

  14. Apparently you have to go several steps from the observed data to the panic button. (a) The snow melts earlier, (b) the ground is a bit warmer, (c) this will lead to release of stored carbon (maybe), and (d) more carbon in the air will cause additional warming, and (e) the warming will cause melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, and (f) the warmer sea will also expand, and therefore (g) the oceans will rise faster. Everything from (c) on is debatable. I’d also be interested in seeing confirmations on (a) and (b). And did the recent cold winter have any effect on this? I think the ski lifts will be open across the Western United States well into the summer.

  15. Google: “faster than expected” “Ice”

    By going back to only 2004, using different reports from different years, I get that the ice is now melting:

    Much faster than even faster than faster than twice as fast as faster then three times faster then faster than expected.

    If we could put a value on ‘faster’ we could know how wrong the modes where in 2004.

    Sea level is similar.

    It is absurd.

  16. When I read this: “Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees. ” I knew that all which followed was garbage.
    Models?
    What happened to REAL data? Do any of these so-called scientists ever look out of the window?

  17. As the weather gets warmer these stories will appear like ice-cream ads.
    Noted a spike in alarmism during the last brief heat-wave in UK.
    They have always co-ordinated their press releases with warm weather…

  18. Check out the sea level curve here – from Wikipedia. Sea levels in the geologic past have been up to 300m higher than present day levels. (This section has not yet been visited by the AGW police…)

    “Sequence stratigraphy is a branch of geology that attempts to subdivide and link sedimentary deposits into unconformity bound units on a variety of scales and explain these stratigraphic units in terms of variations in sediment supply and variations in the rate of change in accommodation space (often associated with changes in relative sea level). ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_stratigraphy

  19. 02 Nov 1947 — I experienced my first birthday.
    02 Nov 1948 — I experienced my second birthday.

    This trend has continued through the present day when, on 02 Nov 2010, I experienced my sixty-fourth birthday. At this rate, by the year 2100, I will be experiencing birthday number 154.

    Hope you youngsters can keep up with me….

  20. Much larger areas of permafrost thawed as the last ice age ended. Records of methane in the atmosphere from that period are available from numerous ice cores. If the methane levels then were a major player in warming then, this fact would be highly publicized. Since it hasn’t been, one can be sure the effect was small back then and will be even smaller in the future (since there is much less permafrost to thaw).

    Just to be sure, let’s do the calculations: The Greenland ice core shows a sudden increase of CH4 from 500 ppb to 700 ppb about 12,000 years ago. Using the IPCC’s formula for the radiative forcing for methane (without correcting for the overlap with N2O which will reduce the forcing): deltaF = 0.036*(M2^0.5 – M1^0.5) = 0.15 W/m2; about 0.12 degC if climate sensitivity were 3 degC for 2X CO2.

    In contrast, methane has increased from 700 ppb to 1745 ppb since 1750, producing am estimated forcing of 0.48 W/m2 (corrected for N2O) or 0.55 W/m2 (uncorrected).

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

  21. According to the “newspost” at http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5580

    ” The effects of climate change in the Arctic are already here. And the changes are taking place significantly faster than previously thought. This is what emerges from a new research report on the Arctic, presented in Copenhagen this week. Margareta Johansson, from Lund University, is one of the researchers behind the report.”

    So it seems this is not a “study” or a peer-reviewed paper , it’s a “research report”. One which it seems no-one can actually see, analyse and verify unless (possibly) they go to the meeting in Copenhagen.

    So we have to go on hearsay and MSM regurgitation and reinterpretation of that hearsay.

    “Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began.”

    Maybe they could tell us how many thermometers are currently reporting from inside the arctic circle. How many were there in 1880 ?! How where those measurements *extrapolated* across the region?

    “Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years. ”

    OMG, their still rolling out Mann’s broken hockey-stick but dare not actually call it by name. It’s just “other data”.

    “There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.

    That is a statement that they know not , not that they know. There are a million things that we have no indication are not happening. That is neither research nor new.

    We have no indications that there is not a pizza van at the north pole of Neptune, that in no way proves or suggests there is one.

    This is clearly nothing but hot air but we can see the foundations of AR5 being carefully lain already.

  22. “jason says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    So the ground covered by the last ice age is now thawing. So it will end up thawed out…just like it was before the ice age. Erm….”

    But it is worse than that… at the peak of the last ice age permafrost spread down to about 45deg N and has since retreated to about 64 deg N. This melting has caused massive problems to humanity like erm…errr….mmmmmm..errm..err ahh the need for fridges and errm….errr….. help me, there must be something else.

  23. If current trends continue, dishonesty in science will have wrecked the reputation of *ALL* scientific fields by summer 2015. /sarc

  24. Even the University of Colorado Sea Level trend only shows 3 mm per year, not 15mm, as would be required to get the sort of sea level rises they are talking about.

    I don’t know how reliable are the concerns about higher sea level rise, but there’s one thing I’m absolutely sure. There’s no scientist claiming 15 mm/y to be required for higher sea levels. There’s noone making a linear prediction of sea level rise, so this sentence ist just nonsense.

    The present value of about 3mm/y is fitting to both predictions, or more precisely:
    It’s to early to conclude anything from the present value.

  25. the GOVT in australia are starting to tell people who live in big houses close to the sea shore they now live in a flood area , as the sea level will rise 900 mm by 2010 . not very good for your land value

  26. sorry the sea level in australia will rise 900mm by 2100 not 2010 the GOVT will not change it,s mind on global warming it is going to send australia down the drain

  27. Such a wealth of targets. I feel like I am inside the Alamo during the battle. How about this little jewel:

    ‘“There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.’

    Maggie, dear, scientists are expected to learn self-restraint and self-criticism. Lesson number one is that you do not make a claim that could be understood as science fiction. Do not suggest that the permafrost has entered a process of runaway thawing. A closely related lesson is that you do not make a claim that begs for ridicule. Maggie, dear, what would be an indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw? That it is freezing? Would that work? So, you have ruled out the possibility that the permafrost will once again freeze during your professional career? Now, just how did you do that? Would you please explain. I bet it freezes again next October, if not sooner. If not by October, then certainly by January. Of course, Maggie, no doubt you have in mind some metaphysical kind of freezing that cannot be comprehended by mere mortals.

  28. This is desperate, desperate stuff! I don’t know where to begin.

    “Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years………….Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees.”

    So were summer temperatures higher before 2000 years ago? Of course they were.

    Ice free Arctic during the Holocene

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016

    Tundra where there were trees

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(71)90069-X

    Historic variations in Arctic ice

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

    Greenland
    “The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
    Jason E. Box et. al.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1

  29. Alexander: “The present value of about 3mm/y is fitting to both predictions, or more precisely: It’s to early to conclude anything from the present value.”

    Except that we can conclude that there is no cause for alarm. That is, unless someone has a grounded, rational explanation (not hand-waving what-if’s) for how either: (i) 30 cm/century is a problem, or (ii) the rise will greatly accelerate in the future.

  30. DirkH says:
    May 4, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    “If current trends continue, dishonesty in science will have wrecked the reputation of *ALL* scientific fields by summer 2015. /sarc”

    It’s worse than we thought. There has been a large acceleration in the number of newly minted Phds in science who employers find laughable. Today, surveys show that ninety-0ne percent of new science graduates are trusted only to sell used cars. /sarc

    Actually, this little problem is getting darn scary. My genuine belief about all this is that the Left always believed that the Cold War and what they see as its replacement, 9/11 and its aftermath of wars, are huge lies told by conservatives so that they can maintain power in government. The Left never understood the Cold War or 9/11, as a gazillion quotations from Jimmy Carter and such people can easily prove. In their pathetic way, the Left is trying to use climate science to tell their own huge lie as a counter to what they believe are conservative lies. But their effort is pathetic. They chose to lie in science, the one arena where there is an objective standard of truth. Dumbies! (Disclaimer: I do not mean to suggest that conservatives were actually lying.)

  31. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Hugh is a computer, right? Even Alan Turing would recognize that no human can produce such perfect CAGW-speak.

  32. It’s been said before: If the term “Arctic Ice” means sea ice, then there is no change in sea level from the seasonal melting and regeneration (neglecting density diiference between fresh and salt water). Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t thermal expansion the major factor in sea level rise? Simple logic says: if the sea level doesn’t rise, then there is no thermal expansion and/or net addition of water to the ocean. Again: if 40% of the “sea level” rise of late was caused by melting of ice, then why wasn’t the rise of sea level much less than recorded before this alleged occurrence?

  33. New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres…. This is largely due to the rapid melting of the Arctic icecap.

    Arctic icecap? Floating ice raising sea level when it melts? Well, at least they can spell ‘arctic’ correctly.

  34. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    This post is based on actual data. Your conclusion that it is alarmist is a strawman claim. The facts are what they are, and they can not be disputed out-of-hand. There is ample supportive evidence available to lead to the conclusion that sea level rise will be a problem sooner, rather than later.

    How soon? Here is the ‘evidence’ from the above:

    “There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson…..

    “…………which could increase global warming.”

    “But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. ”

    Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees.”

    “New estimates also show that by 2100, the sea level will have risen by between 0.9 and 1.6 metres, ….”

    Have you considered soot backed up by wind?

    It’s worse than I had previously thought. This winter has been a calamity due to lack of snow in the Northern Hemisphere. Temperatures has been tropical as peoples’ heating bills went waaaaaay down. I hope you come back to WUWT in 5 years time when the horrible truth suddenly sinks in. ;O)

  35. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    This post is based on actual data.

    Here is the data. Show me the trend.

    [Dedicated to Arctic temperatures since the 1958]

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Arctic sea ice concentration is looking VERY bad indeed. Since 2007 it has not gone into a death style spiral.

    Open your eyes my friend. Times are a changing.

  36. Sam Glasser says:
    May 4, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    It’s been said before: If the term “Arctic Ice” means sea ice, then there is no change in sea level from the seasonal melting and regeneration (neglecting density diiference between fresh and salt water). Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t thermal expansion the major factor in sea level rise?

    You have hit the problem. The ‘other’ evidence points to a deceleration of the rate of sea level rise.

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    Not to mention water extraction for irrigation adding to sea level rise.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044571.shtml

    I have been informed that there would be a very small rise in sea level if all of the Arctic melts.

  37. Clarification:

    I have been informed that there would be a very small rise in sea level if all of the Arctic [sea ice] melts.

  38. Hugh Pepper says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm (Edit)

    This post is based on actual data. Your conclusion that it is alarmist is a strawman claim. The facts are what they are, and they can not be disputed out-of-hand. There is ample supportive evidence available to lead to the conclusion that sea level rise will be a problem sooner, rather than later.

    Hmmmn.

    1. Actual measured values for summer temperatures at latitude 80 north since 1958 are declining.

    2. All of the annual winter ice on arctic land surfaces (other than icecaps obviously) melts completely during summer months. So, the extent of “summer melting” is completely eliminated over any winter. There has NO relationship between winter maximum ice extents and summer ice extents the preceding or following years.

    Therefore, what exactly IS the “melting albedo effect” so often alarmed about in CAGW forecasts of feedback? After all, the Arctic is not exposed to the sun in sufficient amounts to reflect sufficient heat from the surface ice to affect temperatures.

  39. “Studies” like this make one wish that the FUNDING for climate “research” would decline “faster than expected”…

  40. Hugh Pepper, computer models are not “proof” nor are they data. Satellite and tidal gauge observations show the rate of sea level rise is 2-3 mm per year, perhaps even slowing down in the last 3 years.

  41. racookpe1978 writes a very strange note,
    “Hmmmn.
    1. Actual measured values for summer temperatures at latitude 80 north since 1958 are declining.”

    By “actual measured values,” do you mean the DMI modeled values? What exactly is declining, and how does this contradict anything AMAP has written?

    “2. All of the winter ice on arctic land surfaces melts completely during summer months. So, the extent of “summer melting” is completely eliminated over any winter. There has NO relationship between winter maximum ice extents and summer ice extents the preceding or following years. “

    I can’t even guess what you meant here. Arctic land surfaces have many glaciers, ice caps, shelves, ice sheets, gullies, mountains, and snow fields where last winter’s ice survives the next summer. Less so than there used to be, but what “melts completely”?

    Sea ice doesn’t all melt either, and has a well-known relationship between winter maximum and summer minimum the preceding and following years.

    “Therefore, what exactly IS the “melting albedo effect” so often alarmed about in CAGW forecasts of feedback? After all, the Arctic is not exposed to the sun in sufficient amounts to reflect sufficient heat from the surface ice to affect temperatures.”

    I gather you have never been to the Arctic, or read anything about it?

  42. From the report:
    “Large quantities of carbon are stored in the permafrost.”

    and:

    “The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.”

    Now these two – Johansson and Callaghan – are researchers. Scientists, right? Yet they can’t be bothered to make the distinction between an element and a compound. I am not a scientist by profession, I studied English literature, but I know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. And I recognize a scary story when I see one; this one’s a beaut. Pure fiction.

  43. There is nothing fundamentally different between permafrost and peat. Does peat spontaneously evaporate into CH4? All of it?

    What exactly is the basis of the claim that melting permafrost emits masses of methane? For sure, some of it will turn into CO2, some to CH4, and quite a bit into organic carbon in the soil and the rest into new growth.

    A consistent theme in the alarmist claims about melting permafrost (melting is not a rare event – the ‘line’ moves north and south all the time) is that it is akin to a balloon of methane about to pop when its ice cork melts. Nonsense. What is abundantly clear from areas that have recently melted, like the MacKenzie River valley at Inuvik, is that trees grow rapidly and in abundance as soon as the ground is warm enough to let their roots penetrate. You can hardly walk between the trees at Arctic Red. This is goint to happen even before the deeper layers melt.

    The statement that there is twice as much carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere a) indicates how little there is in the atmosphere, and b) raises the question as to where the carbon came from to build up the permafrost biomass. The atmosphere, right? Did the loss of all that carbon-dioxide from the air initiate or exacerbate an ice age? Probably not, because the presence or absence of CO2 simply does not have as much influence on the global temperature as several other factors.

  44. I ain’t no science thingie guy, but don’t the ice melt EVERY summer, and freeze EVERY winter, almost like some sorta cycle whatchamacallit?

  45. I spent several years in Prudoe Bay in the middle 80’s. The permafrost there was thawing to about 30″ below the surface every year. And the permafrost was about 2500 feet deep. My question is “How much further down is it thawing now, and how long will it take to get to 2500 feet?”

    KJuve

  46. Eric Anderson says:
    May 4, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Alexander: “The present value of about 3mm/y is fitting to both predictions, or more precisely: It’s to early to conclude anything from the present value.”

    Except that we can conclude that there is no cause for alarm. That is, unless someone has a grounded, rational explanation (not hand-waving what-if’s) for how either: (i) 30 cm/century is a problem, or (ii) the rise will greatly accelerate in the future.

    I doubt even the 30cm. Have we seen 30cm of global sea level rise? I live on an island (Whidbey) where 30cm would have cause dramatic changes in the coastline, yet no such thing has been apparent over the last century. Whidbey NAS is right down at a couple feet above sea level, and the runways aren’t flooded, they don’t have high sea walls. The Dugualla bay lowland isthmus hasn’t been inundated, looks the same as it did decades ago. I seriously doubt the accuracy of the measurements.

  47. Correction:
    I see the quotes I previously cited were from the Lund University press release and not from the report itself. I need to take more time in reading these things, but all of these stories and press releases are merely variations of the same theme, hence I skip over some details. These bed-wetting, hand-wringing stories have become so monotonous (how long has the sky been falling now?), but once you’ve seen the man behind the curtain, the wizard isn’t so scary anymore.

  48. While the warmistas are leading the charge in disinformation and alarmism, it is best we fight back with facts.
    And the basic fact is, there is little credible information regarding GMSL(Global Mean Sea Level).
    I suggest we remind those that stand behind their assumptions and allegations, that their is no evidence suggesting accelerations in sea level rise, and the data they use to make any such allegations is purely interpretative.
    I am appreciative of those that have been reading my posts on sea levels and I appreciate Anthony allowing me to link to those posts.
    I have written another article called, “An Introduction Into Global Mean Sea Level, A Fallacy of  Alarmism, and Beyond”
    I’m basically calling into question the validity of Church et al. (2004), Satellite altimetry to reconstruct tide gauges and my opposition to ‘Alarmists’ announcing and suggesting accelerated sea levels, using any data in regards to GMSL.
    Thanks again for your time, and maybe some of you can come up with a better headline than the one I came up with, by leaving a comment here at WUWT, or at my blog.
    Thanks in advance.
    Enjoy !

  49. whoa.

    .876 mm/yr on the envisat chart. at that pulse-quickening pace, we’ll see 1 whole foot of sea level rise in, say, 348 years or so.

    enough time to even grow my own trees for my ark, too.

  50. It’s like science has turned into a creepy version of Lindsay Lohan’s latest shocker. It made her a LOT not more credible but she still gets casting calls and her picture on the cover of People. Which means that the people who are hanging on every word, lapping this drivel up, and throwing money at this kind of science are keeping the Lohan scientists working. Find them, vote them out, and this torture stops.

  51. I have spent some time recently reading on warmist sites. The bloggers invariably claim that they have the science and data on their side, as HP does, and that skeptics make it up. Of course, they believe the models are data.

    There is very little climate data mentioned in the article being discussed here. Mostly it is models and conjecture. The main data mentioned is arctic temperatures, which they maintain have been rising rapidly. They even have the courage to mention tree rings as a proxy for temperature. There does appear to be something strange going on in the Arctic. The Jones et al. data set has a large temperature increase between about 1910 and 1930. Odd because another far-north observatory shows a steady increase, no big jumps.
    Around 1940 to 1945, the Arctic temperature was apparently higher than today. No indication that rising CO2 levels are the cause, so logically something else is going on. Maybe tree rings were used for the older part of the data? Of course, I don’t have the actual data Johannsen used to analyze Arctic trends.

    There was a discussion of this some time ago, see http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

  52. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years

    I simply do not believe that these people are that stupid. They do think that people in general are, however, and they have no compunction about lying to advance an agenda. People like Margareta Johansson have sold their souls to people like Julia Gillard – a perfect storm of convergent interests and ideologies. These people are not just wrong, they are enemies of humanity.

    And it’s interesting to note that so many commenters have taken “Hugh Pepper” to task…. wasted effort. “Hugh” is not as stupid as he sounds nor is he educatable. He’s probably not “Hugh Pepper” either. Ever wonder why his comment is always near the top and there are seldom any followups or responses to our earnest criticisms? Astro-turf? Troll? Enemy of humanity?

  53. ““But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this.” says Margareta J

    Not so fast. We already know that when the permafrost thaws, the life there wakes up and becomes a very good carbon sink. So, they can stop pretending that we still have to find out and worry about “what if” it is not a sink. Rumors of huge methane releases are unfounded speculation.

  54. Eric Anderson says: May 4, 2011 at 4:08 pm
    …there is no cause for alarm … unless someone has a grounded, rational explanation … for how … (ii) the rise will greatly accelerate in the future.

    Hi Eric. From http://amsstationscientist.ametsoc.org/post?id=5129712 a study beginning 1992 and ending 2009.

    “The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That’s enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year… The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. ”

    The loss of mass from ice-caps is accelerating measurably now. If this were to continue, linear extrapolation from today’s noisy readings will not prove a good predictor. Work out a doubling period and see what would happen.

  55. If you complain about the weather long enough, it will turn around and bite you.
    AGW is coming down with a serious case of frostbite.

  56. This is but one illustration from a CSIRO Australia Conference in Cairns Queensland 4-8 April 2011. The slideshow and attributions are at http://greenhouse2011.com/page.aspx?docid=11
    An image that our tax$ pay scientists for is reproduced at

    Is this science?

    There seems to be trend here, as well as countries like Sweden, where Brady (above) notes:
    Who Should Attend
    “Scientists, decision–makers, Ph.D. students, administrators, managers, health care officials, indigenous peoples, representatives of industry and non-governmental organizations.”

    It can be difficult for those not in the circle to get Proceedings. I’ve even had a Member of Parliament help me to get Proceeding from another such “conference” in Tasmania 2010 – with no success.

    There seems to be a global programme of guerilla scientist training camps, paid for with public funds but closed to John Citizen. Do you have any in your countries, readers?

  57. A nearly 20 year study period(actually 1992 to 2009)…Wow, Ammonmite, even PDO-AMO cycles go longer that that…A study period that long on ice formation and melt is very much like “weather, not climate”!

  58. By doing a google of
    “sea levels are rising much faster than we thought”

    http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rl…0l0l506l506l5-1

    …we find that the levels of articles quoting that “sea levels are rising much faster than we thought” is much worse than we thought!!!

    Seas are Rising Faster than Ever. by Fraser Cain on July 8, 2005 … cover is shrinking much faster than we thought, with over half of recent sea level rise …

    Seas could rise higher than we thought – University of New South Wales7 Aug 2007 … “The most recent information reveals that sea-levels are rising fifty per cent faster than levels predicted in the 2001 IPCC report. …

    Climate Change Report Says We’re Worse Off Than We Thought …19 Jun 2008 … The oceans are warming and the sea levels are rising faster than previously … Climate Change Report Says We’re Worse Off Than We Thought …

    NASA Satellites Measure and Monitor Sea Level
    “Icecover is shrinking much faster than we thought, with over half ofrecent sea level rise due to the melting of ice from Greenland,West Antarctica’s …

    Seas are Rising Faster than Ever. by Fraser Cain on July 8, 2005 … cover is shrinking much faster than we thought, with over half of recent sea level rise …

    Climate Change Report Says We’re Worse Off Than We Thought …19 Jun 2008 … The oceans are warming and the sea levels are rising faster than previously … Climate Change Report Says We’re Worse Off Than We Thought …

    Faster Rise In Sea Level Predicted From Melting Greenland Ice …31 Aug 2008 … According to the new study, rising sea levels up to a third of an inch per … “We think this is a very low estimate of what the Greenland ice sheet will … Larger Contributor To Sea-Level Rise Than Thought

    Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Previously Thought | Humanitarian NewsIn April 2011, we retrieved 27500 articles from 1130 sources. … Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Previously Thought. 3 May, 2011 – 18:30 …

    sb350 / Sea Level RiseSea level rise: It’s worse than we thought …. LATEST BAD NEWS REGARDING SEA LEVEL RISE… Oceans Rising Faster Than UN Forecast, Scientists Say (Update2) …

    Sea Caves Reveal Rapid Rise in Ancient Ocean Levels: Scientific …12 Feb 2010 … Going back to the topic in the article, this shows that sea levels can rise much faster than anyone thought, and until we get some idea of …

    Sea Level Rise this Century Higher than Previously Thought …21 Jul 2007 … We will most likely see larger than previously expected increases in sea … Sea Level Rise this Century Higher than Previously Thought …

    Sea levels may rise three times more than first thought – Climate …8 Dec 2009 … “But the data show us clearly – the warmer it gets, the faster the sea level rises. If we want to prevent a galloping sea level rise, …

    Sea level rise: It’s worse than we thought – Climate Change: The …5 Jul 2009 … Sea level rise: It’s worse than we thought …. more likely because emissions have been rising faster than the IPCC’s worst-case scenario. …

    RealClimate: How much will sea level rise?4 Sep 2008 … We stress that no-one (and we mean no-one) has published an informed ….. Then, this article only addresses sea level rise from Greenland. ….. melting faster than previously thought and could cause sea levels around …

    Top of sea warming 50% faster than thought – Telegraph18 Jun 2008 … Sea-level rise is a key consequence of of climate change but the actual … at a rate 50 per cent faster in the last four decades of 20th century than … We show that the rate of ocean warming from 1961 to 2003 is about …

    How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?26 Jun 2010… sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it … Considering the importance of rising sea level to a human … sea level rise roughly 3 times greater than the IPCC predictions. … For the higher emission scenario, which is where we’re currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 …

    The Truth About Rising Seas By John James31 Oct 2008 … We see change happening much faster than we thought,” and went on to warn that … in Gippsland because of threats from rising sea levels. …

    Bad news: sea level rise may be worse than we thought : Deltoid27 Feb 2010 … Bad news: sea level rise may be worse than we thought …… any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they …

    Seas could rise higher than we thought – University of New South Wales7 Aug 2007 … “The most recent information reveals that sea-levels are rising fifty per cent faster than levels predicted in the 2001 IPCC report. …

    etc, etc, etc!!!

  59. Ian Holton says: May 4, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    A nearly 20 year study period(actually 1992 to 2009)…Wow, Ammonmite, even PDO-AMO cycles go longer that that…A study period that long on ice formation and melt is very much like “weather, not climate”!

    Fair call and hence my use of the word “if”. I don’t know how ice sheets will respond if warming continues, but present behaviour is worth thinking on before deriding suggestions that sea level rise may accelerate from present levels.

  60. “Our data shows that there is significantly more than previously thought. There is approximately double the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the atmosphere today”, says Margareta Johansson.

    Could that be because it’s made of Peat?

  61. Sea level rise measured in millimeters and fractions of millimeters. Impressive measurability. When I am out on the sea. I watch for sea level rises in the range of 2 to 10 meters swells. Anything less is just noise. Hint – its never flat calm. 900 millimeters to 1600 millimeters over the next 89 years works out to about 10 to 18 millimeters per year on average. Current measurements indicate a trend much less than that. Where is this Swedish beef ?

  62. ‘Don’t confuse me with facts, I havw seen calving glaciers and know it is caused by global warming’

    How many times has some film star shouted something like this? Pile on the agony, I believe, I believe.

    They should really stick to acting, or perhaps this ‘fear’ is also acting.

  63. And it makes you wonder why those people at University of East Anglia are so desperately concerned about their future funding, future research, future job prospects, pensions etc and so ardently refuse FoI requests.
    If they were to believe this (and their own predictions) they must surely have very little future as sizeable chunks of East Anglia are already below sea level….
    (The actual University itself is about 10metres above sea level as best I can tell)

  64. Really, Kamp? Got any actual proof to support that? How about in August you toddle back here and show us an ice free Arctic Ocean. We will be here, waiting with bated breath!

  65. “The carbon comes from organic material which was “deep frozen” in the ground during the last ice age. As long as the ground is frozen, the carbon remains stable. But as the permafrost thaws there is a risk that carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, will be released, which could increase global warming.”

    For folks who are supposedly involved in scientific study of the matter they seem to be incredibly ignorant of what “permafrost” actually means. Almost every area that is classed as permafrost thaws at the surface and down to depths that vary from a couple feet to 20 feet or more every year. What makes it permafrost is the frozen earth that remains below the thawed layer which in the northern parts of Alaska goes to depths of 200-400 meters.

    http://tinyurl.com/3vlybpu

    The areas on the map described as “continuous” mean that permafrost is continuous over the area not that they are continuously frozen. The “discontinuous” regions are also mostly classified as intermittent meaning that over time they may be permafrost or not.
    When the thaw occurs the soil temps near the surface may warm significantly but as the thaw deepens the soils don’t get much warmer than the coldest setting on your refrigerator at the margin. Even if the thaw depth increases it will do so at depths and temperatures which won’t support any massive increase in the biological activity necessary to generate the wholesale release of CO2 and methane that these “scientists” suggest. The mean annual temp in the “continuous” permafrost region is given as -6C to-12C, so even if temps increase by the worst case scenario numbers they use, the chances of the permafrost disappearing are as likely as my getting a winning Powerball jackpot ticket.

  66. “Margareta Johansson, Division of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis, Lund University”

    That would be the same Lund University that hosts research and teaches classes in parapsychology. It is not exactly a first class science institution.

  67. If this is the quality of the science that will go into AR5 you lot will have a field day wrecking their reputations.

    Let them make their own coffin,then let them lie in it . That way you will know where the bodies are to be found when the time comes to get your stakes out.

  68. Jeff Alberts says:
    May 4, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Just to clairify, if sea level rise is said to be accelerating, and it’s currently at 3mm/year it wouldn’t have risen by 30cm in the last centuary.

    Have a look at the paper below and see figure 3a which shows the observed sea level rise over the last hundred odd years. It show a sea level rise of about 17cm in the last centuary with the current yearly rate at 3mm/year.

    You should also be able to see that the rate at which sea level is rising based on this data is increasing.

    http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

  69. So now the greenies are predicting a melted Arctic devoid of ice. Reminds me of some here who predicted a dead Sun, devoid of spots, asleep in a grand minimum frozen Earth epic.

    Watching a trend without understanding its mechanisms is a primrose path. The world continues to turn, the trade winds continue to exist, the pressure differentials between the equator and polar regions continue to work they way they should. The mechanisms for our weather pattern variations are still in place.

    If you want to put your butt on the line (reverently referred to as the model trend line) and placard us with Armegeddon warning, be prepared to be kicked in the arse by the trendline you stand on to raise your Chicken Little warning.

  70. The article states explicity that this report “will serve as the basis for the IPCC’s fifth report, which is expected to be ready by 2014.”

    If that is the case then some very smart skeptics need to dismantle the claims piece by piece before then. Sarcasm and witticism, entertaining though they may be, will not suffice. I hope Fred Singer is on top of this.

  71. Speaking of Sol.

    Wow, looks like we are all gonna die in a fiery flood!!!!!! Now, I ain’ts no climate scince thingie guy, and may need some help countin’ all them there sunpot thingamajiggers. Looks like,,,,,,,2.

    Was not some environutjob saying just a few weeks ago that the “exceptionally quiescent minimum phase” was over and there was to be a major increase beginning in March? If they are as accurate with sea level increase and Arctic Sea ice melt as with sunspot prediction, why is anyone giving them money?

  72. “There is no indication that the permafrost will not continue to thaw”, says Margareta Johansson.

    Interesting way of thinking. It is not looking for supporting evidence of a changed condition where permafrost is going to continue to thaw. Instead it is concluding that nothing proves the opposite.

    If tomorrow is warmer than today, than it can esily be stated that there is no evidence that the heat increase will stop. Based on that, the temperature can be predicted to reach 200 degree Celcius in just a few months. What happeed to science using thesis together with reasonable null hypotheses?

    — Mats —

  73. 2Hotel9 says:
    May 5, 2011 at 3:13 am

    Really, Kamp? Got any actual proof to support that?

    Depends. What is ‘actual proof’ for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Don’t worry. I’m used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).

  74. RR Kampen says:
    May 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

    2Hotel9 says:
    May 5, 2011 at 3:13 am

    Really, Kamp? Got any actual proof to support that?

    Depends. What is actual proof for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Dont worry. Im used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).

    Translation – “No, I don’t have any proof. I just like to tweak you d*niers here at WUWT”

  75. The Arctic is one of the parts of the globe that is warming up fastest today. Measurements of air temperature show that the most recent five-year period has been the warmest since 1880, when monitoring began. Other data, from tree rings among other things, show that the summer temperatures over the last decades have been the highest in 2000 years.

    Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change.

    The future does not look brighter. Climate models show that temperatures will rise by a further 3 to 7 degrees.

    Then please would they explain how we got into the ‘Little Ice Age’ if the increased temperatures create runnaway warming? Remember the Greenland graves buried in current permafrost?

    Roots of plants and deep Viking graves found in South Greenland in soil that is now tjaele (permafrost or permanently frozen ground) indicate that the annual mean temperature must have been 2-4°C warmer than now. It is possible to estimate the summer temperature on the basis of the story in Landnámabók (985-1000) about Thorkel Farserk, who swam out to Hvalsey (in Hvalseyfiord) in order to fetch a sheep to make a feast for his cousin, Erik the Red. By way of comparison, Dr. Pugh from The Medical Research Laboratories in England has established on the basis of studies of Channel swimmers and the like, that 10°C would be the lowest temperature that a man who had not been in special training would be able to endure, even if he was fat. The average August temperature of the water in the fiords along this coast now rarely exceeds 6°C. The water in Thorkel’s time must therefore have been at least 4° warmer and probably more than that. The summer temperatures (for the air) in the fiords in South Greenland would then have been 13-14°C (as compared with the present 8-10°C), and in Godthaab’s fiord about 12°C, with a correspondingly shorter growth season. Further north around Melville Bay the summer temperatures would have been 9-10°C, as compared with the present 3-5°C.

    http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html

  76. DD More says:
    May 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

    The MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland. I think that’s fairly well documented and explains that observation.

  77. FYI Anthony: today on NPR/PRI there was an interview with your friend Walt Meier, after which the hostess concluded,

    Walt Meier is the co-author of a new report predicting that global sea levels could rise as much as five feet by the end of this century.

    In the interview, Dr. Meier focused on melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, which he claims was proceeding at a rapid pace, and yes, he did say that sea levels could rise “three to five feet.”

    Might be worth exploring this new paper in a separate post.

    /Mr Lynn

  78. my background is engineering and so a couple of questions rise to mind.

    water is an ultimately flexible medium. it literally moves if you look at it. (we can detect storm surges from even the mildest weather at great distances.)

    and then there are gravitational anomolies (the “hump” in the mid atlantic.)

    water is pulled around by the moon, stars, planets and other heavenly bodies. some of these movements have not been explained to any degree of accuracy yet.

    then we have density/volume fluctuations caused by temperature, impurities, even fish f^&%ing.

    and so i say that if one of the scientists are predicting a rise of sealevel of .00001″ they must tell us just where and when that rise will occour. otherwise it seems to me to be simply speculation with funding in mind.

    so just where is sea level measured?

    are the instruments calibrated, are the calibration instruments traceable and what was the date for that?

    what day and what time is the great happening going to occour?

    vast numbers of people want to know (some of them so they can set up hotdog stands on the site in anticipation of the event. )

    C

  79. Andy Wehrle says:
    May 5, 2011 at 7:03 am

    You are absolutely right about that. It is fun and relatively easy to cast aspersions at the holes in the arguments of AGW proponents (I’m trying to be diplomatic). But, as it is said – these people ain’t playin’.

    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson

  80. Colerado University plots a sea level trend of 3mm increase a year. Hmm, thats 3cm a decade and, let me see, 3 metres increase in 100o years…OMG… Noah’s flood is with us still!

  81. Frank K. says:
    May 5, 2011 at 9:23 am
    [..]

    Depends. What is actual proof for you? (with AGW-skeptics, this always depends. Dont worry. Im used to receiving either nil answer to this simple question, or some ad hominem remark).

    -> Translation – “No, I don’t have any proof. I just like to tweak you d*niers here at WUWT”

    Thank you, you live up to my expectations. Excellently.

    A hint. Check out the pool of open water over the North Pole.
    Check out where the bulk of the ice is – it is at the Bering Strait side (Chuckci, Beaufort, East-Siberian seas). This region sees the fastest melt in summer, early autumn and especially since 2005 becomes ice free.

  82. OK, Kamp, you are at least honest enough to admit you have no actual proof. We get it.

  83. “A hint. Check out the pool of open water over the North Pole.” Really? Reeaalllyyy, Marge? You mean the pool of open water underneath several meters of solid ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    I especially love this from the May 4 entry,”Slow start to summer sea ice melt”
    Here, look long and lovingly at the image taken at the end of April, http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110504_Figure1.png Wow, that ice is just vanishing before your eyes! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

  84. 2Hotel9 says:
    May 6, 2011 at 3:44 am

    OK, Kamp, you are at least honest enough to admit you have no actual proof. We get it.

    OK 2Ote9, what do YOU consider ‘actual proof’?
    (given my the succes of my expectation of getting nil answer to this simple question, I would take increasing heed of my expectations re Arctic sea ice!).

  85. Poor Kamp, can’t follow links or grasp reality. I know! Tell us about the Hockey Stick Graph again, that will end the debate! OOh, ooh, ooh, I know! Trot out the UN’s IPCC report. That will show us.

    Here, lets us try this again, you click your pointer thingie on the purple letters
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and it will magically take you to another place, which has “information” about the Arctic and its ice. Now, you are going to have to read, even though there are purty pictures and whatnot, in order to understand what is going on. Although, you can just check http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110504_Figure1.png and just look at the image, it should get reality through to you. Maybe.

  86. SteveE:

    Your post at May 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm is both silly and disingenuous.

    The paper being discussed in this thread asserts that “3 to 7 deg.C” of warming would cause permafrost to melt with resulting ‘runaway’ warming. But DD More provided evidence at at May 5, 2011 at 11:00 am which clearly indicates that a thousand years ago the temperatures in Greenland were at least 4 deg.C higher than now. On the basis of that evidence he asked;

    “Then please would they explain how we got into the ‘Little Ice Age’ if the increased temperatures create runnaway warming?”

    Now, that is a serious question which deserves an answer.

    But your reply says, in full:

    “The MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland. I think that’s fairly well documented and explains that observation.”

    Firstly, it does not matter if “MWP was localised and longer lasting than the present day temperature in Greenland” because that cannot affect the answer to the question from DD More in any way.

    Secondly, the MWP was NOT localised: it was world-wide. And this is documented by hundreds of research papers; follow the links from

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php

    Your response would satisfy those who attend warmist web sites. But readers of WUWT can think and are capable of checking assertions such as yours.

    Richard

  87. Somewhat tangentially related. The PTB finally admitted that the sea level here on the West Coast of the US is falling. Of course they inserted all sorts of caveats “PDO, blah, blah, blah … eventually AGW will make it surge in the opposite direction, blah, blah, blah.” Still … :-)

  88. Oh dearie 2Hotel9, you will have guessed I know those sites too well and so much longer than you and what is so much more: I can interpret them. Naturally, these facts are taboo, as facts are, no?

    I really like your bending over backwards to skirt my simple question. What is actual proof (prod, prod)?

  89. Yep, checked again this morning and, still, no “open pool of water” at the North Pole. Wow, that actual proof you can not produce keeps coming around to kick you in your a$$ every single day.

Comments are closed.