Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC – facts versus gloom-and-doom assertions.
Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.
Ignoring these facts, President Obama continues to insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and rising seas that “threaten” coastal communities. With Congress refusing to enact job-killing taxes on hydrocarbon energy and CO2, his Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to unleash more job-killing carbon dioxide regulations, amid an economy that is already turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs and welfare.
America and the world desperately need some sound science and common sense on climate change.
Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.
The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.
The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).
Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out – and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.
Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.
The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).
In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out.
The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.”
And yet, that is exactly how the deficient models are being used: to devise and justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy and people’s lives.
Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.
Meanwhile, a leaked draft of the forthcoming report from the IPCC itself reveals that even its scientists are backtracking from their past dire predictions of planetary disaster. Professor Ross McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) economics department, put it bluntly in a brilliant Financial Post article. “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph,” he wrote.
The graph dramatically demonstrates that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! Considering how defective the models are, this is hardly surprising.
And yet, on this basis we are supposed to trash our hydrocarbon-based energy system and economy. It’s absolutely insane!
Two Climate Change Reconsidered briefings will be held next Monday, September 23, in Washington, DC – featuring NIPCC experts. Their title says it all:
“Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the UN will exclude from its next IPCC climate report”
The first will be at noon at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE and will be co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The second will be held at 3:00 pm in room 235 of the Rayburn House Office Building, and will be sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition. Hard copies of the NIPCC Summary for Policymakers will be available for all attendees.
The events will be followed by a media tour of the East Coast, featuring Professor Bob Carter and other NIPCC scientists. For further information consult the Heartland Institute and NIPCC websites.
Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them. This can no longer be tolerated. Far too much is at stake.
Climate Change Reconsidered proves there is no “consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming – and raises the debate to a new level. Read it, get the word out about it, watch this Fox News segment, and take action. Your future, and your children’s future, depend on it.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
ralfellis;
And then he tried to start a war with Syria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? When was this? I recall the red line which turned into a pink line which then turned into a chalk line. Then, although he nonchalantly declared that if Congress didn’t take action on climate change, he’d take action without them. But a 100,000 people are dead in Syria, many of them civilians murdered en mass by their own government, and suddenly he needs the permission of Congress to take action?
He didn’t try to start a war. He pure bluffed, the Syrians and Russians called him on it and he’s now claiming he won as he makes an agreement with pure evil that will never be enforced.
Chris says:
September 20, 2013 at 6:32 am
I’m curious. If the NIPCC’s science is so much better than the IPCC’s, why doesn’t the NIPCC subject their findings to any kind of peer review?
REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony
————————
Unlike the UN’s IPeCaC, the NIPCC’s findings are based upon peer-reviewed literature, not grey area puffery & spurious pal-review that let’s anything pass which supports the Cause.
policycritic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/19/colorados-exceedingly-rare-flood-in-3-maps/
first graph shows the chance for the 24-hour rainfall total as less than 1/1000 so it is greater than a thousand year flood. This means that the chance for this happening in any one year is less than .001 .
PeterB in Indianapolis
1. only one temperature indicator suspiciously shows a decline in temperature since 1998, this indicator is not used in any credible scientific analysis that I have seen:
here is the graph
of course if you look one year after the abnormal spike that happened in 1998 you get this
So it really is a selection of data points, however only rss shows a decline in the period you claim.
2. I am not aware of Al gore’s hurricane predictions, I do know that the IPCC did show that hurricane activity was modeled to decline by 2100 with the model that showed the highest decline predicting >35% reduction in number of hurricanes by 2100. It should be noted that these same models predicted sea ice in the arctic to be gone in the summer of 2080 but now it looks like this will likely happen sometime in the next 10 years. — with regard to Al gore, I think you may be using him as a straw man argument, he is a politician not a scientist.
3. You are confusing news stories with science. It is a question whether or not tornado intensity is increased with climate change, however, I have not seen anyone with any kind of predictive model say what they think is going to happen under climate change. there are simply too many unknowns at this time. in any event, the variability of these events make it impossible to be absolutely sure they are caused by climate change, as Pielke jr. will tell you. What he WON’T tell you, however, is that by the time his models DO show that the events are statistically significant, we will have already experience thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of loss due to the increased storms and intensities.
4.that is the wrong watershed. that water all went into the Platte, new mexico got some extra rain this year, that is good, they rely on monsoonal flows. the western states rely on winter storm snowpack. today every county in California was declared a drought disaster area by the USDA, this is the driest 9 months in California state history. http://www.kmjnow.com/09/20/13/Most-of-California-Considered-Drought-Di/landing.html?blockID=714055&feedID=806
5. Global sea ice must be looked at as it affects the climate, not a total sum at any given time. In the polar winter season, with no sunlight, the sea ice acts as an insulation barrier that prevents heat loss to space. So more sea ice in the winter keeps the heat in. During the summer, less sea ice means more (much more) sunlight is absorbed by the ocean. So when comparing total annual sea ice one must look at the trends from summer (north) and winter (south) and add them together for the minimum that year.
It should be noted here that Antarctica has experienced declines in land-based ice. The increase in arctic sea ice is attributable to slowing down of the thermohaline circulation and resultant wind patterns caused by sea surface temperature anomalies. These variations are expected to happen.
6. with respect to this summer’s temperatures, I am not sure what you mean by “cold in a lot of places” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201308.gif This shows that it was incredibly warmer all over the globe. looking at a few small locations where it wasn’t is simply putting your head in the sand.
7. you are misinformed, we do experience and have witnessed sea level rise.
cheers!
jmitchell;
So more sea ice in the winter keeps the heat in. During the summer, less sea ice means more (much more) sunlight is absorbed by the ocean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Less ice in the summer would then also mean more (much more) energy (proper term, not heat) radiated to space. The balance of your arguments are similarly absent the facts regarding the system as a whole.
Repeat of Question: do you even know what exponential means?
William McClenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Henry says
well did you ever read my final report?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
some of my conclusions
1) I could not find in the data that any anomalous warming was caused by so-called GHG’s/.
The data showed that means increased because maxima were increasing, clearly indicating a natural process
2) Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
the cycle picked by me in the data for maxima is here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
3) The above cycle can be translated in a 100 (or 90-110 ) year weather cycle as noticeable from earth (means) which was already observed by William Arnold back in 1985 by looking at the flooding of the Nile.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
Interested?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting.
William McClenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
interested in reading my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting…
davidmhoffer
in the summer the sun is out all the time so the incoming radiation is much more than the potential longwave radiation escaping to space. that is why things heat up if you leave them in the sunshine.
Yes, more heat energy radiates out during the summer months in the arctic, just less than is coming in from the sunshine.
at night, however, it gets colder. In fact, in a cold, dry, sunless climate (like the Antarctic during the summer months) you can actually make ice by putting a copper dish with a thin coat of water out in under a clear night sky and make ice, even if the ambient temperature is greater than freezing. I’ve done it in the desert.
yes, do you?
William Mcclenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Henry says
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
Interested in my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:46 am
According to predictions from several Russian meteorological services, Europe could see abnormally low temperatures this coming winter. It might even be the coldest winter in the last 100 years.
[trimmed]
Highlights:
•This winter will be extremely cold
•European countries will be the most affected
•Atlantic jet stream and low solar activity are the reasons
•Russia temperatures more likely to be within normal range
http://jurnalul.ro/stiri/observator/iarna-care-vine-va-fi-cea-mai-rece-din-ultimii-100-de-ani-experti-rusi-651891.html
Thanks to Alex Tanase for this link
The truth will ALWAYS come out sooner or later, in this case it was sooner. By decade end AGW theory will be gone.
My average solar parameter theory states if these solar parameters are attained folllowing several years of sub-solar activity in general the temperature trend is going to be down.Sub solar activity in general started in year 2005.
THEY ARE:
solar flux avg. sub 90.
solar wind spped avg. sub 350 km/sec.
ap index avg. sub 5.0 some spikes the other 1% of the time.
cosmic ray count per min. north of 6500.
e 10.7 flux avg. sub 100.
solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more.
This over a duration of time of 3 plus years.
Some Secondary effects
A more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution changes in the stratosphere due to very low EUV light values. In turn a more meridional atmospheric circulation will result in more clouds, precip., and snow cover for the N.H. Colder temperatures ,increase in albedo.
Low solar wind will result in an increase in galactic cosmic rays (also have to take into account the strength of earth’s magnetic field, which when weak will compound solar effects) which will result in an increase in clouds ,lower temperatures.
Weak solar irradiance will result in weaker amounts of visible light penetrating the ocean surface ,result will be lower ocean heat content.
Low ap index with spikes will promote more volcanic activity as will an increase in galactic cosmic rays ,many studies have shown. Mr. Casey of the Space and Science Center has research in support of this.
An increase in volcanic activity if high latitude will contribute to warming the stratosphere in the higher latitudes resulting in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, while at the same time cool the surface of the earth due to so2 particles reflecting incoming sunlight.
Some speculate that the cold phase of the PDO( more la ninas ,less el ninos) is tied into prolonged solar activity ,due to rotational changes in the earth ,due to an increase in gelogical activity.
That is my basic take, easily falsified if the solar parameters I said are reached and the climate does not show a decline in the temperature trend.
Oh give it a rest. One year when ice extent just creeps into the 2-sigma error band is not even worth comment. The trend for arctic ice extent is down. I spend a fair bit of time arguing with the pro-AGW crowd on blogs such as the Guardian and such like. I’m frankly fed up of dealing with nonsense like this which makes all sceptics look like statistical ignoramuses.
Yes I did – and even then there is no statistical evidence to state that the warming has stopped. The Hadcrut4 trend between 1975 and 2000 was around 0.19 deg per decade; the trend between 1996 and 2013 (17 years) is 0.1 deg per decade. Trends with error bars are as follows.
1975-2000 0.187 ±0.072 °C/decade (2σ)
1996-2013 0.094 ±0.122 °C/decade (2σ)
Note there is NO statistically significant difference between the 2 trends. In other words there is no statistical evidence (at 95% CI level) that the warming rate since 1975 has changed.
Do you fancy a wager? It’ll save me the trip to Las Vegas.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve just spent a fair proportion of the last week and a half arguing against die-hard warmers on Guardian blogs. I don’t think I’m what you would call an ‘alarmist’.
Jean Parisot says: @ur momisugly September 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Isn’t the biggest miss the lack of increased water vapor, without which the whole scenario falls apart….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is one of the three BIG LIES that support CAGW.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere is another and that Global Temperature has any meaning at all.
Actually with a flat temperature and a decline in water vapor you have a net decline in energy if I am not mistaken.
John Finn says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Trends stay the same until they switch, whether in climate or financial markets. Arctic sea ice minimum might or might not be smaller next year, but “invariably & by a lot” seem to me not very justifiable forecasts to make, especially for a statistician.
Also, please analyze RSS or another satellite data set for supposed global temperature, since HadCRU is one of the more heavily “adjusted” series.
Thanks.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Please explain why you are sure that Arctic sea ice will invariably be much lower next year. Following the 2007 record minimum, extent was higher in 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011. Probably would also have been in 2012 but not for the freak August storm.
So IMO odds are pretty good that not just 2013, but 2014, 2015 & 2016 could also stay above the dramatic 2012 low, & not vary greatly from this year’s recovery. But who, expect I guess you, can know the future with such certainty?
Chris says:
September 20, 2013 at 6:32 am
I’m curious. If the NIPCC’s science is so much better than the IPCC’s, why doesn’t the NIPCC subject their findings to any kind of peer review?
REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony
Reading it or not reading it is irrelevant to the point made. I’ve seen many criticisms on this site regarding papers and the IPCC not allowing comments from all, including AGW skeptics. A simple question – did the NIPCC allow comments and input to their report from outside parties, including AGW believers?
Dan says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Sonoma State University located in Rohnert Park, California (Northern California) has the following ‘survey’ under way….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
A rather prejudice survey. The did not have ‘Other’ or H..L NO! as an answer where I would have like them
milodonharlani says:
September 20, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Should have written “if not”.
Here are the minimum Arctic sea ice extent numbers in sq. kms. from NSIDC, which differ from some other record keepers:
2006: 5.92
2007: 4.30
2008: 4.73 (+10% gain)
2009: 5.39 (+14%)
2010: 4.93
2011: 4.63
2012: 3.63
2013: 5.10 (+40.5%)
I know what “invariably” means, but not sure about “much lower”. After the 2007 record low, 2008 was higher, followed by an even higher minimum year. Next year could be another build, with more multi-year ice, but might not be. It’s weather, after all.
jai mitchell says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:59 am
in a cold, dry, sunless climate (like the Antarctic during the summer months)
Jeez, you talk some nonsense. The area south of the Antarctic Circle gets more daily solar radiation at the summer solstice than anywhere else on Earth, at any time of the year.
Crispin, I was aware I was paraphrasing AR5. I was too lazy to look up the direct quote.
jmitchell;
Yes, more heat energy radiates out during the summer months in the arctic, just less than is coming in from the sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s during a short time period. There is a larger time period when the days start to shorten, the nights lengthen, and the ice cover doesn’t yet exist. The result is more (much more) cooling than if the ice existed. You keep grossly over simplifying the problem and demonstrating that you only want to consider those aspects of it that match your belief system.
As for your contention that you understand what exponential means, your discussion of the math regarding average surface temperature in another thread suggests that you don’t. That aside, your use of the term up thread also demonstrates that you do not understand the term, or the physics involved, or both. The direct effects of CO2 increases are logarithmic. Even including feedbacks, the effects are logarithmic. The climatic changes driven by CO2 increases are consequently also logarithmic. Your statement that the dangers are increasing exponentially is unsupportable.
Sasha says:
September 20, 2013 at 1:14 am
“Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of Course that was the mandate from the very start. After all how else will you scare humans into doing what you want.
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The IPCC mandate states:
That is not about understanding what causes climate change at all.
Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organization tells us the actual ‘Cause’.
Kon Dealer says: @ur momisugly September 20, 2013 at 2:08 am
O.T. but well worth a look.
Greenpeace will find out it doesn’t pay to p*** off the Russians 🙂
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130918/183548105/Shots-Fired-in-Arctic-Over-Greenpeace-Protest-at-Oil-Rig.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seems Greenpeace can’t take a hint. The Russian just ran them off earlier this summer without shooting at them.
davidmhoffer
The temperature projections for the next 100 years follow an exponential curve. This is due to the continued accumulation of CO2 and a lag effect, it takes time for the earth to warm so we have a buildup happening.
Therefore the future dangers are going to grow exponentially until they come so fast and hard that there will be no possible way to adapt to them. That is why we must curtail CO2 emissions on a global scale immediately.
Your simplistic assertion that the dangers associated with climate change follow the logarithmic CO2 temp dependence curve belies your muddied comprehension of the natural responses to climate change by in a warming environment.
for example,
In our (earth’s) recent history, during the Eemian, this has proven to be true, During this period, the earth was slightly warmer than it is today, just slightly. Back then, during the latter portion of the Eemian climactic optimum, It took thousands of years to warm from the point that we were at only a few hundred years ago. Then, after sea levels had stabilized for several thousand years, the world’s sea level rose by over 17 feet within a period that is less than 1,000 years. The actual time period was very likely much shorter than that (since 1,000 years is the shortest timespan that we can pull from the record)
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/did-an-ice-sheet-collapse-120000-years-ago-pushing-sea-levels-up-to-9m-higher-than-today/
“he was confident that the 17-foot jump happened in less than a thousand years – how much less, he cannot be sure.”
From policycritic on September 19, 2013 at 10:12 pm:
Loser. I logged on to Amazon US, did live chat. Nice person said to give them 24 hrs while they checked higher up.
BOOM. Amazon’s listing is now active. Hit “See All Buying Options” and you can order it from that UK seller through Amazon.
THE BOOK IS NOT BANNED IN THE US. All you had to do was ask nicely.
Click This:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241
davidmhoffer
with regard to the arctic losing heat as fast as it gains it, you forgot to include surface mixing after the sea ice is melted and stratification of the ocean once the ice begins to return. If what you are saying is true then the sea ice should have recovered to levels closer to the 1980-2000 average after the ice melts of 2007 and 2012, instead, because of the thinness of the sea ice, they only partially recovered to be lost (will lose) more in latter years, below the previous minimum.
Arctic Ice Volumes