Droogoy,

I’m afraid that the Arctic ice cap isn’t melting as fast as you’ve been led to believe i.e. more ice this year than last, (your doomsday prediction is unraveling). In fact, it’s moving in the opposite direction of the doomsday prophets. That being said, accurate measurements began in 1979/1980; hardly a long term analysis. We shall see.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf

Please stop the cherry-picking, taking isolated reports out of context.

Thousands of scientists in a whole range of disciplines are working in the field. All of the scientific organizations they belong to - the NAS, the American Geophysical Union, and many others - say that humans are changing climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Here's the AGU statement:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

Yes, you can find vaguely convincing sounding statements from pressure groups that contradict this, and you can make up conspiracy theories about scientists making stuff up to get grants. And you can pull up statements made by individuals (not these organizations) in the past about climate that were wrong.

That doesn't change the bottom line. A consensus does exist among scientists on the subject. The political issues, and what specifically should be done is another topic. But it all has to start with the science, and the science is there.

from the RWAs last night justifies Romm's title. I had forgotten just how out of touch with reality these people are!

Dude, if you don't understand the science, then please stop embarassing yourself and read a little. I'd personally be delighted if there were indeed a reversal, but the problem is twofold.

The weather for this year was extremely unusual and there has been a massive decrease in old core ice as well as the thickness of the ice. Much of the arctic is now less than one year old!. As you'd no doubt know, the surface of the water is much easier to freeze than the deep and it is the loss of the deep core ice which is a forewarning of some serious shit in the future.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html

@Stet,

Cherry picking? The graph is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and depicts/compares the average Arctic Ice Extent between 1979 and now, July 1st, 2008 extent and last year's extent. It simply is what it is…… you just don’t like it.

You’ve reverted to the typical Alarmist tactic of refusing to acknowledge observations that cast doubt on you religious dogma, (cherry picking).

Next you’ll accuse me of working for some spooky organization like “Big Oil” or being affiliated with The Bilderburg Group. Sheez.

I’ve also noticed that you guys NEVER mention the Antarctic Ice extent/temperatures (historically high level), when discussing GLOBAL WARMING, (unless an ice sheet calves).

As for a consensus; a consensus of people in the world believe in God (in one form or another), does that prove that He exists?

The consensus several hundred years ago was that the Earth was the center of the universe, should have the discussion/debate stopped at that time? Should all of the people who questioned that belief been silenced and prosecuted as Mr. Romm and Mr. Hansen suggest?

Anybody seen the daily weather records for the last 4 billion years? I seem to have misplaced my copy.

Falhaar,

Uh, “Dude” CO2 levels continue to rise and the global temperature remains flat, which is antithetical to the IPCC crystal ball and their prophecies. By the way, what is “normal” temperature/sea ice extent? Is it what it was last year? One hundred years ago? One thousand years ago? A million years ago?

Surf’s up Dadio…..go catch a wave and hang ten. Groovy……….

Have to go now.....gotta spread some fertilizer on the lawn before it rains.............

Brute, it's pretty telling you didn't even answer my response, but just challenged me on the point of global temperature averages, which I didn't even raise, then followed it up with your bizzare reductionist "what is the normal temperature/ice extent?" comment. All I asked was that you looked at the data provided provided by your own source, which you proudly touted as "it is what it is". (I agree with you by the way, they are quite reputable).

In answer to your ice extent question, as I said, it's not a matter of surface ice, it's the deep core we need to worry about, and yes there has been a marked reduction in the prevelance of old-age ice.

I'm not going to answer your relativist question because the problem is, by modelling and by observing the prior history of the ice cores, we can see that the rate of reduction is simply unprecedented. Normal is too open a word, but the recent history clearly does not follow the millenial record of ice decay and mass shift. Ergo, an external factor is clearly creating this.

And I don't know where you're getting your "global temperature remains flat" data from, but I'd be curious to see your source. By the way I apologise for being as patronising to you earlier, I just found it surprising that a person as clearly interested in global climate patterns such as yourself would not be aware of the true issue of arctic mass loss.

Just to add a little more credence to my point about the unprecedented loss of ice which is does not typically melt seasonally.

http://paos.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf

I'm sorry, I missed where you told everyone why you, anonymous guy out there on the Internet, had more credibility about the science in general and human caused climate change than (say) the National Academy of Sciences and the American Geophysical Union.

I mean, you write stuff like this:

"Cherry picking? The graph is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and depicts/compares the average Arctic Ice Extent between 1979 and now, July 1st, 2008 extent and last year's extent. It simply is what it is…… you just don’t like it."

Farhoo has discussed the specifics of the ice case. But the bigger point is, it's not about liking it or not liking it. What you're trying to say is scientists working in the field, who overwhelmingly subscribe to statements like the one I posted a link to from the AGU are ignorant of this, or don't understand it as well as you. Which is beyond ridiculous.

>You’ve reverted to the typical Alarmist tactic of refusing to acknowledge observations that cast doubt on you religious dogma, (cherry picking).

You seem to have rhetoric confused with science, and science confused with religion, and religion confused with politics, and politics confused with everything else. But, hey, I see you've capitalized "Alarmist?" Wow. Heavy.

I'm looking at the the official statements of all major scientific organizations in the country on the subject, and saying they know what they're talking about. If you want to call this Alarmist with a capital A, let me describe your thought as Idiotic with a capital I.

>Next you’ll accuse me of working for some spooky organization like “Big Oil” or being affiliated with The Bilderburg Group. Sheez.

I don't think you'd be worth hiring: All you do is cut and past what you've found at the dingbat websites. And as far as spooky conspiracies: you have most of the world's scientists and most of the world's governments agreeing that we have a problem. But you know the real deal. Some people who quote the same nowhere sources you do think there's a conspiracy between one-world socialists and grant-hungry, fact-suppressing scientists to create, um, Alarm. Is this you??

>As for a consensus; a consensus of people in the world believe in God (in one form or another), does that prove that He exists?

Again, you don't seem to get the difference between science, in which theories are rigorously tested by critics by experiments and observations in the real world; and religion, in which people argue about words and legends with no mechanism for resolving differences.

When you can find a religion that develops a consensus that enables building a vehicle to put a man on the moon, create an electronic network allowing instant planet wide communications, finds a way to prevent smallpox and polio, cure many cancers, get back to me.

Speaking of that - if you get sick, are you one of these weak, dogma bound believers that visits a doctor, instead of figuring out what's wrong and curing yourself??

>The consensus several hundred years ago was that the Earth was the center of the universe, should have the discussion/debate stopped at that time?

The discussion of human climate change continues as scientists continue to observe and improve their understanding of planetary climate mechanisms. If you'd like to join this discussion, master the tools and submit your work to the appropriate journals.

>Should all of the people who questioned that belief been silenced and prosecuted as Mr. Romm and Mr. Hansen suggest?

Nobody, and certainly not Mr. R and Dr. H., are suggesting silencing or prosecuting anyone. All that's being said is, let the scientists talk about the science, and let the political debate proceed on the basis of what the science says.

You think you know the science better than the scientists?? Thank you for sharing, sir! It is a privilege to meet such a universal genius.