North Pole Ice On Track To Melt By September?

phobos13013 writes "Recently released evidence is showing the North Pole ice is melting at the highest rate ever recorded. As a result, the Pole may be completely ice-free at the surface and composed of nothing but open water by September. As reported in September of last year, the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time known to man. The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"

Comments

Cycles

[courteaudotbiz]

There are cycles on our planet, and that's a fact. We can count at least 4 cycles of global glaciation that we know of. But at a scale a lot greater than the human one, our sun is growing fast. A couple hundredths of a percent every decade. So our faith is there. As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

In the course of our tiny human life, we will never see the planet completely ice-free, nor will we ever witness Nenets Beach. But it's a fact we can see a slight difference, and it's a fact that WE make a slight difference on climate change. But our destiny is that of our Sun

Too early to tell?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Aren't there valid arguments that say that this is just a cyclic phenomenon linked to solar activity?

Re:Whitewash.

[Daimanta]

to

Global Warming: Biggest scam ever

Re:Why no rising sea level

[stewbacca]

Not according to "An Inconvenient Truth". North pole ice melt will drown downtown Manhattan! I'm super serial!

this would prove the skeptics right!

[dpuu]

Skeptics tell us that the climate models are riddled with errors, and cannot be trusted. It it turns out that the artic does indeed become ice free this summer then this would prove them right.

Just last year, the models were predicting summer 2013. That would be about 60 months to be ice free. If it happens this summer, then that would be less than 10 months. The time predicted by the model would be 500% greater than reality (if it happens).

How can you base environment policies on models that are shown to have such large errors? We obviously need to postpone any action until the models are much more accurate! [/sarcasm]

Re:this would prove the skeptics right!

[statemachine]

That's your summary, but it's obvious you didn't bother to understand the article.

You: need falsifiable hypothesis
From my link:

The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future - and indeed have successfully done so.

You: uncertainty
From my link:

Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

You: error bars
From my link:

In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like "likely" and "very likely" in terms of percentage probability.

You: cloud modelling is error prone

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change .

You: financial market modelling
From my link:

Of course, in some ways financial markets are much trickier to model than the climate, depending as they do on human behaviour. What's more, trading based on computer models alters the nature of the very thing you're trying to predict.

So... human behavior changes the forward prediction.

You take bullet points for your summary then refuse to explain them, as if they aren't addressed in the very article I linked. You then claim that these models aren't validated. Shame on you. Did you read it or did you just skim and not bother even following links?!

Here's another article to read from the same series (that was linked in the article I gave you, BTW)
MYTH:Chaotic systems are not predictable
And a quote from it since you likely won't read it through:

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates.

You: "week by week"
That's called *weather* my friend. And this article even defines climate for you:

Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.

In actuality, climate modelling is more important than your financial modelling. Climate modellers are striving for more accuracy all the time, and making models more and more accurate with more data sources isn't "tweaking" as it may be in your models. Plus, *lives* depend on climate models, as opposed to your financial models. Someone losing a million dollars is nothing compared with a million people losing their livelihood, or worse, their lives.

Read through the rest of the article series, and follow all the links. Be curious about science. That's my best advice.

Re:Natural?

[Poppa]

Biofuels will help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it still will contribute CO2.

The Liberals are in a tough spot right now and this will become a major campaign issue. They have no plans for reducing the price of gas in the short term and their policies of the past will prevent anything from happening soon enough to make a difference in the long term.

We need to go to more alternative energy sources that are carbon-free. Like nuclear, water and air. Unfortunately, the Liberals have been against building nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams and wind power (if it is in their back yards).

So, again, the Liberals have no solutions but will just whine and complain.

Interesting article.

[MaWeiTao]

Interestingly enough, I read this today. Remember when the big scare in the media was the hole in the ozone layer?

The more scientists learn the more they realize that the environment is far more complex than the simplistic and alarmist notion that human activity is changing the climate.

Re:You know who I feel sorry for?

[Sporkinum]

Crazy Ernie sez....

If nobody comes down here and buys a car in the next hour, I'm gonna club this baby seal. That's right! I'm gonna club this seal to make a better deal. You know I'll do it, too, cause I'm crazy.

Re:You know who I feel sorry for?

[geekoid]

It's not the God Damn son, you lying son of a bitch.
Countless studies show that.
Prick.

'hotter then Europe'. Yes, except it's hotter all over the damn world, not just Europe.This is not a local Phenomenon, it's a global one. Notice how places that have had ice for 1000's of year are loosing ice. Ice the predates 'Europe hotter period' by 10,000 years is going away.

Yes, there are normal cycles, the only people to doubt that are the ignorant young earthers.
The massive amount of CO2 in the air is having a strong impact on the enviroment. Out side of politics and religion, this is the accepted fact. It has mountains of evidence.

I want to puty my fist through a wall every time one of you ignorant SOBs spout off this disproven crap. You are confusing the issue with your lies, stop it.

Let me know if you ahve some evidence contrary to what is happening, otherwise STFU, dickweed.

Re:You know who I feel sorry for?

[seandiggity]

My ancestors were radical cod, you insensitive clod!