I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
Mike H: “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.”
And you don’t seem to be alarmed that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently expanding and what the coming Ice Age will due to Argentina.
The problem here is that both need to be taken in context of cyclical variations throughout a day, year, and at longer terms. But what we lack at this point is enough knowledge of the relevant climate systems to state “We are DOOMED!”. There are simply no accurate and empirically verified models out there to even allow such outside having picnics with the Jonestown folks.
For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.
Jim Petrie
August 4, 2012 4:57 pm
Sea ice correlates with the calender. More sunlight -less ice. There can be slight variation correlating with changes in CO2 but the consistent driving force is the length of the day.
Temperature is determined by the sun. Greenkouse gases have a very minor role.
This is what the NSIDC say about pre-satellite era arctic sea ice – more reliable than vague ancient maps and newspaper cuttings: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
Gneiss
August 4, 2012 5:13 pm
Mark Serreze’s colorful 2008 comment increasingly seems prescient: because of positive feedbacks, Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. This year looks very likely to set new record lows for extent, area and volume consistent with a steepening downward trend.
Without admitting it, Entropic and Abbott would like everyone to believe that CO2 prefers the Arctic over the Antarctic.☺
Folks, it’s wind and ocean currents, and a few other factors. The amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability. That’s all. CO2, and especially the tiny amount of CO2 that is human emitted, has nothing to do with Arctic ice.
We’re talking about global warming of 0.8ºC over a century and a half. Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice cap. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 5:19 pm
From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm:
The reason for this is that the sceptic/denial community is only interested in finding reasons to undermine the science.
Wow, another blanket insult against the entire grouping, and you just couldn’t stop yourself from slipping in the “d-word” despite the Site Policy.
So even credible observations showing dramatic decline in arctic sea ice area and volume “must” have an alternative explanation to the mainstrean view – which is that it is largely caused by warming seas and atmosphere and that is largely due to human induced global warming.
“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
Wow, NASA is part of the “sceptic/denial community” embracing alternative explanations for a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice. Someone better tell Hansen that NASA-GISS is no longer authoritative outside of the “sceptic/denial community”, maybe the shame will force him to retire.
Gneiss
August 4, 2012 5:28 pm
Maus writes,
“But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932.”
But this is far from the truth. Neither 1932 nor any other year in the 20th century, as far as we can tell either from proxies and historical records, had Arctic-wide ice extent nearly as low as it is right now. Anecdotes about one particular coast having low ice don’t tell the story.
For example, in August 1932 although the ice edge was mostly north of the Siberian coast, there was still much ice in the Kara Sea, while the east coast of Svalbard and all of Franz Joseph Land were surrounded by ice. On the North America/Greenland side the NW Passage was firmly frozen, and there was ice in the Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, and southeast Greenland where we have open water today. Extent then was far greater than it is today.
Entropic man
August 4, 2012 5:35 pm
Smokey says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm
” the amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability.”
You talk a lot about this natural variability. Some peer reviewed evidence for the drivers you regard as causing this variability would not come amiss.
James Abbott
August 4, 2012 5:36 pm
Maus said
“For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.”
No, I was responding to P Wilson, who said
“However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”
It is hardly hysterical to point out that it would NOT have been physically impossible in 2007 to get about that distance from the pole. I am simply stating a fact.
Try this: http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png
shows the steady decline in ice extent that set in around the 1970s, on a plot that goes back to 1953 and as previously posted, NSIDC says the current melt is unprecedented in several centuries.
So thats data produced by a scientific organisation that specialises in arctic research, based on the best evidence they can get from satellites and before that reliable shipping and other observations.
But you would rather cite a single Russian ice breaker in 1932 (and that assumes that report is accurate) as a better source of data ?
Maus
August 4, 2012 5:36 pm
James Abbot: “…more reliable than vague ancient maps …”
Based on ships logs.
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. ”
Based on ships logs.
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
So… like with the Greenland melt ‘unprecedented’ means ‘precedented cycle longer than 150 years’. There’s an apropos bit here: http://xkcd.com/605/
John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2012 5:38 pm
Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“ . . . +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge . . . and so on
Sorry, I missed the post or comment where the characteristics of the sea ice data is demonstrated to meet the assumptions for application of the statistics being invoked. Can you link to that, please?
Luther Wu
August 4, 2012 5:42 pm
Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)
All years since 2007 also show significantly low values. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png
_____________________
Do you have a real point; something meaningful to say?
In other words, SO WHAT?
“Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
Fascinating how we still have the odd “alarmist” heading here to warn us that things are really bad and that we should be doing something instead of nothing. Oh, and to take it serious as well. Well maybe Mike H. could supply us with the facts or is there something that he knows that we don’t. I am all ears, as it is still fascinating to witness the endless alarmism being waived but no specifics offered to support it. Sad really how others who have been waiving the warmist flag are looking to an honourable discharge.
James Abbott
August 4, 2012 5:51 pm
Smokey said
“Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.”
And kadaka (KD Knoebel) said
“with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:
“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”
Yes, the wind and water conditions can move the ice and break it up. We know.
And yes in 2007, as NASA said, wind patterns encouraged an even larger ice melt than the other big melts of the 2000s. We know.
I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.
Mike H (I think)
If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.
========================================================================
I thought it was supposed to be this year? Or was it only supposed to be this year last year?
Mooloo
August 4, 2012 6:08 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice
The earth has been gradually warming for a couple of hundred years now. That it continues to warm is no surprise. The AGW argument is not proven by warming, let alone less polar ice.
I suspect warming is a blessing, because on the whole a warmer world is a nice world. So I don’t get alarmed by less ice. It’s hard to see many Canadians and Russians complaining their winters are too mild and they want them colder!
Even if it is heading towards a “too hot” world, I still don’t think the blame lies with CO2.
Rather than fret about a minor side-show like polar ice, I am prepared to wait to see what the cause of the long-term warning is. I’m certainly not joining the hair shirt brigade on the off-chance they are right.
Abbott says:
“…it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation” BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT! WRONG!! All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now. Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.
And your silly pseudo-science link has articles like: “It takes a community”, and “how do we ditch fossil fuels?” Anti-science eco extremists belong on the Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site.
You are way out onto thin ice [intended] by picking an example someone posts of prior Arctic warming, and then arguing with it. That would be fine once, except that the number of examples of past Arctic melt are beginning to bury you. Here’s another one:
“In fact, so little [Arctic] ice has never before been noted”
Scare stories sell newspapers. But only the gullible believe everything they read.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 6:18 pm
From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm:
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,
you point to an NSIDC piece, where they admit they don’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, but you decide the NSIDC piece must be able to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, even unto “the last several hundred years.”
That makes sense to you?
Let’s not forget climate change fears in the early 1900s because the Arctic was melting rapidly. For example … The North Pole. Causes of Change of Climate
Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up, with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world?
Science (says ‘Popular Science’) is asking these questions. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. etc. The Advertiser, 4 April 1923 http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
Lyle
August 4, 2012 6:43 pm
It’s a local thing but Major ice concentrations in Frobisher Bay (southern Baffin Island) have seriously disrupted shipping to Iqualuit, Nunavut, Canada. A freighter that tried to push through has a bow resembling the side of the Costa Concordia.
Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer
August 4, 2012 7:09 pm
Entropic man says: August 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Jimbo says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
RCS says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …
I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!
What I can’t decide is if you’re serious, or just trolling. Did you in fact read what the man said? He was engaging in snark, poking fun at your side and what they regularly say. In other words, he was giving your side of things. So, do you really believe what you said, or are you just trolling? I would hope for the latter. Trolls are at least a time honored part of internet discourse.
Mike H: “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.”
And you don’t seem to be alarmed that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently expanding and what the coming Ice Age will due to Argentina.
The problem here is that both need to be taken in context of cyclical variations throughout a day, year, and at longer terms. But what we lack at this point is enough knowledge of the relevant climate systems to state “We are DOOMED!”. There are simply no accurate and empirically verified models out there to even allow such outside having picnics with the Jonestown folks.
For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.
Sea ice correlates with the calender. More sunlight -less ice. There can be slight variation correlating with changes in CO2 but the consistent driving force is the length of the day.
Temperature is determined by the sun. Greenkouse gases have a very minor role.
The Greenland melt at summit heights turns out to be not that unusual (ever second year versus every 150 years).
The Danish DMI posted this on July 28th (and they sound a little p’oed at NASA for the hype).
Google English Translation and historical data for the summit.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&u=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/t_vejr_pa_gr_nlands_top
This is what the NSIDC say about pre-satellite era arctic sea ice – more reliable than vague ancient maps and newspaper cuttings:
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
Mark Serreze’s colorful 2008 comment increasingly seems prescient: because of positive feedbacks, Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. This year looks very likely to set new record lows for extent, area and volume consistent with a steepening downward trend.
Without admitting it, Entropic and Abbott would like everyone to believe that CO2 prefers the Arctic over the Antarctic.☺
Folks, it’s wind and ocean currents, and a few other factors. The amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability. That’s all. CO2, and especially the tiny amount of CO2 that is human emitted, has nothing to do with Arctic ice.
We’re talking about global warming of 0.8ºC over a century and a half. Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice cap. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.
From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm:
Wow, another blanket insult against the entire grouping, and you just couldn’t stop yourself from slipping in the “d-word” despite the Site Policy.
Gee, with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:
Wow, NASA is part of the “sceptic/denial community” embracing alternative explanations for a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice. Someone better tell Hansen that NASA-GISS is no longer authoritative outside of the “sceptic/denial community”, maybe the shame will force him to retire.
Maus writes,
“But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932.”
But this is far from the truth. Neither 1932 nor any other year in the 20th century, as far as we can tell either from proxies and historical records, had Arctic-wide ice extent nearly as low as it is right now. Anecdotes about one particular coast having low ice don’t tell the story.
For example, in August 1932 although the ice edge was mostly north of the Siberian coast, there was still much ice in the Kara Sea, while the east coast of Svalbard and all of Franz Joseph Land were surrounded by ice. On the North America/Greenland side the NW Passage was firmly frozen, and there was ice in the Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, and southeast Greenland where we have open water today. Extent then was far greater than it is today.
Smokey says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm
” the amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability.”
You talk a lot about this natural variability. Some peer reviewed evidence for the drivers you regard as causing this variability would not come amiss.
Maus said
“For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.”
No, I was responding to P Wilson, who said
“However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”
It is hardly hysterical to point out that it would NOT have been physically impossible in 2007 to get about that distance from the pole. I am simply stating a fact.
Try this:
http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png
shows the steady decline in ice extent that set in around the 1970s, on a plot that goes back to 1953 and as previously posted, NSIDC says the current melt is unprecedented in several centuries.
So thats data produced by a scientific organisation that specialises in arctic research, based on the best evidence they can get from satellites and before that reliable shipping and other observations.
But you would rather cite a single Russian ice breaker in 1932 (and that assumes that report is accurate) as a better source of data ?
James Abbot: “…more reliable than vague ancient maps …”
Based on ships logs.
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. ”
Based on ships logs.
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
So… like with the Greenland melt ‘unprecedented’ means ‘precedented cycle longer than 150 years’. There’s an apropos bit here: http://xkcd.com/605/
Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“ . . . +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge . . . and so on
Sorry, I missed the post or comment where the characteristics of the sea ice data is demonstrated to meet the assumptions for application of the statistics being invoked. Can you link to that, please?
Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)
All years since 2007 also show significantly low values.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png
_____________________
Do you have a real point; something meaningful to say?
In other words, SO WHAT?
Entropic posts a link to NSIDC. I guess he missed the link where I showed that NSIDC cheats.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
“Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
Fascinating how we still have the odd “alarmist” heading here to warn us that things are really bad and that we should be doing something instead of nothing. Oh, and to take it serious as well. Well maybe Mike H. could supply us with the facts or is there something that he knows that we don’t. I am all ears, as it is still fascinating to witness the endless alarmism being waived but no specifics offered to support it. Sad really how others who have been waiving the warmist flag are looking to an honourable discharge.
Smokey said
“Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.”
And kadaka (KD Knoebel) said
“with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:
“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”
Yes, the wind and water conditions can move the ice and break it up. We know.
And yes in 2007, as NASA said, wind patterns encouraged an even larger ice melt than the other big melts of the 2000s. We know.
I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.
The really big picture
Looks like the arctic has survived another summer, contrary to the expectations of the warmistas.
Mike H (I think)
If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.
========================================================================
I thought it was supposed to be this year? Or was it only supposed to be this year last year?
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice
The earth has been gradually warming for a couple of hundred years now. That it continues to warm is no surprise. The AGW argument is not proven by warming, let alone less polar ice.
I suspect warming is a blessing, because on the whole a warmer world is a nice world. So I don’t get alarmed by less ice. It’s hard to see many Canadians and Russians complaining their winters are too mild and they want them colder!
Even if it is heading towards a “too hot” world, I still don’t think the blame lies with CO2.
Rather than fret about a minor side-show like polar ice, I am prepared to wait to see what the cause of the long-term warning is. I’m certainly not joining the hair shirt brigade on the off-chance they are right.
Abbott says:
“…it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation”
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
WRONG!!
All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now. Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.
And your silly pseudo-science link has articles like: “It takes a community”, and “how do we ditch fossil fuels?” Anti-science eco extremists belong on the Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site.
You are way out onto thin ice [intended] by picking an example someone posts of prior Arctic warming, and then arguing with it. That would be fine once, except that the number of examples of past Arctic melt are beginning to bury you. Here’s another one:
“In fact, so little [Arctic] ice has never before been noted”
Scare stories sell newspapers. But only the gullible believe everything they read.
From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm:
You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,
you point to an NSIDC piece, where they admit they don’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, but you decide the NSIDC piece must be able to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, even unto “the last several hundred years.”
That makes sense to you?
Let’s not forget climate change fears in the early 1900s because the Arctic was melting rapidly. For example …
The North Pole. Causes of Change of Climate
Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up, with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world?
Science (says ‘Popular Science’) is asking these questions. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. etc.
The Advertiser, 4 April 1923
http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
It’s a local thing but Major ice concentrations in Frobisher Bay (southern Baffin Island) have seriously disrupted shipping to Iqualuit, Nunavut, Canada. A freighter that tried to push through has a bow resembling the side of the Costa Concordia.
Entropic man says: August 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Jimbo says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
RCS says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …
I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!
What I can’t decide is if you’re serious, or just trolling. Did you in fact read what the man said? He was engaging in snark, poking fun at your side and what they regularly say. In other words, he was giving your side of things. So, do you really believe what you said, or are you just trolling? I would hope for the latter. Trolls are at least a time honored part of internet discourse.