backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 197 comment(s) - last by DPercy.. on Jul 10 at 3:56 PM


From Robert E. Peary to recent solo explorer Wave Vidmar (pictured), many have travelled to the geographic North Pole to view the icy spot. However, photos like this may soon be a keepsake, as the North Pole ice is melting like ice cream in the summer sun, and may be ice-free as soon as this year.  (Source: Cal State Fullerton)
After last year's thin ice cover, the North Pole is poised to vanish due to global warming in a short time

DailyTech has previously covered the frantic pace of melt in Greenland, which is accelerating, dumping vast amounts of water into the sea.  Meanwhile, the North Pole has been steadily melting away as well.  Fortunately, the North Pole ice is floating, and thus will not affect sea levels, but its dissolution is an important indicator of warming.

While some remain critical that global warming is occurring at all, the melting of the North Pole represents a sharp indicator against voices of doubt.  Now scientists are predicting that a major milestone will be reached this summer or next -- the disappearance of the North Pole's ice cover during the Arctic Summer.

To most, imagining the North Pole without ice -- only water -- is an incredible prospect.  But that's the reality of a warming world.

The prediction comes from the U.S.'s top climate researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.  They predict that in September, there is a good chance that the ice will be gone on the pole. 

While this is obviously a rather sobering event, the scientists aren't afraid to poke a little fun at the climatological milestone.  Says the center's senior research scientist, Mark Serreze, "We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?'"

About half the researchers are betting that the geographic pole, currently covered in ice will be ice free this fall.  Last year already saw a similarly landmark event -- the Northwest Passage was ice free last September for the first time in recorded history.

All of these events are merely part of a larger trend according to researchers.  Says Serreze, "What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up."

Why are they uncertain about whether this summer's warmth will pierce the polar ice?  The warming fluctuates largely with weather patterns, so the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel's back will likely be weather, either this year or next.

"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage,"  explains Serreze, "This year, a different pattern can set up. so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."

While the event is significant, it will not cause any problems says Serreze.

He states, "From the viewpoint of the science, the North Pole is just another point in the globe, but it does have this symbolic meaning.  There's supposed to be ice at the North Pole. The fact that we may not have any by the end of this summer could be quite a symbolic change."

He does say that the rate of disappearance still "astounds" him, even though he's used to seeing unusual weather daily.  He says the development is just a sign of how global warming is picking up its pace.

Says Serreze, "Five years ago, to think that we'd even be talking about the possibility of the North Pole melting out in the summer, I would have never thought it.  If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100.  Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."

Some skeptics of global warming have also suggested that the melt is part of a cyclical process.  Flat out wrong, says Serreze.  He explains, "It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well.  We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming."

Not above a bit of scolding of global warming skeptical, Serreze says, "It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so."

While Serreze says that the climate effects of warming may be damaging, there may be a bit of a silver lining for the time being in the clouds of global warming.  The disappearance of ice will allow oil to be saved on shipping routes by using the Northwest Passage.  Also, speaking of oil, there are large oil reserves at the pole.  In perhaps the greatest irony, global warming may free these reserves, which in turn will help contribute to more warming.

Much understanding remains to be developed of the causes, mechanics, and ramifications of warming, but as the stark face of reality rears its ugly head in the form of historic melting, it becomes clear that there's little room remaining for skepticism that massive climate change is indeed occurring.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 12:29:08 AM , Rating: 2
How many things can Jason get wrong? First, his headline implies the North Pole will be ice free, whereas the original story only claimed it "might" happen.

Second, the prediction was in no way tied to global warming -- the North Pole has been steadily melting for at least the last 7,000 years -- since the end of the last Ice Age.

Third, the scientist quoted in this story has already distanced himself from it, saying, and I quote:
quote:
I hope that I will not be pilloried by the community for being a part of this story. From what I can gather, it started with a piece in “National Geographic Online”, moved to a piece in “The Independent”, another piece on CNN, and then quickly grew out of all reasonable proportion...
Fourth, conveniently left out is the fact that Southern sea ice is approaching unprecedented levels. The fact that the North Pole is warming yet the South Pole cooling is a glaring defect in conventional GW theory.




RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By borismkv on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 12:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot the most damning fact of all. Even for the North Pole, sea ice levels today are higher than they were last year. Arctic sea ice has actually rebounded in the past year, which makes the timing of this story doubly suspect.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Andy35W on 6/30/2008 1:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I forgot the most damning fact of all. Even for the North Pole, sea ice levels today are higher than they were last year. Arctic sea ice has actually rebounded in the past year, which makes the timing of this story doubly suspect.


Ice extent is the same as for last year at this time, see

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

it has a steeper curve than last year showing more rapid melting than last year though.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Ice extent is the same as for last year at this time"

You've misread your graph. The solid blue line is 2008 data, and is clearly above 2007.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By MRwizard on 6/30/2008 4:01:58 AM , Rating: 5
no, Masher is correct. we ARE doing better than last year


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Solandri on 6/30/2008 4:50:59 AM , Rating: 5
They're both right. There is more ice this year than last due to a cooler winter, so the amount of ice this year still exceeds the amount of ice at the same time last year (masher2 is right). But the ice this year is melting faster than the ice last year (Andy35W is right).

Anyway, it's pointless arguing about this. It's folly to try to extrapolate trends from just one or even several year's worth of data. After 5-10 years if a trend becomes clear, the people who were right at year 1 or year 2 will proudly proclaim that they knew it all along, when in reality they were idiots who based on insufficient data jumped to premature conclusions which just happened to be correct guesses. You'll notice the scientists are pretty up-front that they are just placing bets based on guesses for fun.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Ringold on 6/30/2008 5:39:52 AM , Rating: 4
You attack masher for stating things not backed up by substantial data, then make apocalyptic forecasts not based on any substantial data beyond your own opinion. Scientists estimate sea level rise and crop damage, economists take that data and examine its economic impacts. Taking the IPCC's own worst-case scenario, the damage will be more annoying than catastrophic, and it'll be felt disproportionately by those who in the future are already in a weak economic state (read: Africa). There is no real evidence, beyond speculation from people who have no experience with economic analysis or thought, to suggest anything worse.

So, take your pick JonnyDough. Will you stick with data and the consensus of experts, or do you prefer rhetorical points instead? While scientists may be largely behind you on global warming, economists are not at all behind you on this doomsday scenario bull.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By JonnyDough on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:02:08 AM , Rating: 4
> "What I will "stick with" is the consensus of the experts on every piece of material that I have read about how the sea levels are on the rise, and that many coastal areas will be flooded out. "

If you actually talk to climatologists (or better yet, read their research papers), you'll hear an entirely different story. Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...resulting in a grand total of a ~1 foot rise over the next century.

That's not sufficient to flood even a one hundred-thousandth of Florida, much less "half" of it.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By omnicronx on 6/30/2008 9:19:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...resulting in a grand total of a ~1 foot rise over the next century.
But that's not what Al Gore told me, and what he says must be true! I think I will take the word of a person with absolutely no expertise over a climatologist any day thank you...


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, now you're saying that the sea level has rose 21 meters (69~ foot) in the last 7,000 years, and at such an amazingly steady pace as well?

Where did you get this startingly fascinating information from? Would you be so kind and share it with us?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:29:57 PM , Rating: 5
> "Wow, now you're saying that the sea level has rose 21 meters (69~ foot) in the last 7,000 years"

Actually, sea level has risen more than 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. Sea level rise lately has actually been a bit slower than normal.

> "Where did you get this startingly fascinating information from? "

I knew this from basic high school science. But since you apparently missed that year, here's the data in nice chart form, straight from the UN IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.h...

Now, when you're done examining that graph, perhaps you can work on getting your foot out of your mouth.


By jbartabas on 6/30/2008 7:18:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Masher : If you actually talk to climatologists (or better yet, read their research papers), you'll hear an entirely different story. Sea level is expected to keep rising the same 2-3mm/year it has been for the last 7,000 years...


I am sure it is unintentional, but the sentence is a tiny bit misleading. It seems that current increase is somehow following a smooth and quiet historical trend ... Actually most of the sea rise you're talking about occurred close to the 7,000 year BP (i.e. when we were a bit closer to the end of the last glacial period). Sea level rise has been considerably slowing down in the last millenia. Recent millienia have seen sea level rise roughly ten time smaller than those you are talking about (7,000 years ago) ... except for the last century of course. For that one you're correct, we're back in time in a way ... and that's the point.

quote:
Masher : [...]Actually, sea level has risen more than 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. Sea level rise lately has actually been a bit slower than normal.


Well if you define "normal" as the highs of the transition Glacial/interglacial, then you're right, we've been a bit slow recently ... The point is that we should have been even slower, if not for a recent increase in the speed of sea level rise.

From your own link:
quote:
Comparison of the rate of sea level rise over the last 100 years (1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr) with the geological rate over the last two millennia (0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; Section 11.3.1) implies a comparatively recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.


Here are a few illustrations in see level rise over the last thousands years:

First since the transition glacial/interglacial
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d...
Since the last 8,000 years:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_S...


By Grabo on 7/1/2008 4:39:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now, when you're done examining that graph, perhaps you can work on getting your foot out of your mouth.


What I like about you is that you insult everyone and know everything. What I don't like is that you (continue to) take isolated graphs or numbers from credible sources and draw your own conclusions.

Neatly summarized by the wikipedia :
"Sea-level has risen about 130 meters (400 ft) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1 . "

How reliable wiki is is of course entirely based on the sources, and the sources to that are mostly IPCC papers.

When you say that sea level rise has 'actually been a bit slower than normal', that makes sense from a certain perspective (the 20k year perspective) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d... )
but since we are looking at possible effects, and what the human impact is, it may not be entirely accurate to not pay special attention to the post-industrialisation times for the human race.


By danrien on 6/30/2008 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
so a warming climate has nothing to do with a melting ice cap?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 6:39:19 AM , Rating: 1
So if this doomsday scenario is going to happen why are you still using a computer. It uses energy. It had to be produced. Do you work? You shouldn't. You use gas to get to work. They use electricity. All this stuff had to be made somewhere which used resources, burned fossil fuel, etc.

I'm just speaking from the mindset of people like you who think we should abandon the modern world due to a theory and come up with crap like The Day After Tomorrow to try and frighten people.


By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 8:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
The truth hurts doesn't it.


By tallcool1 on 6/30/2008 12:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
Can nothing stop the Global Warming frieght train?
This bandwagon spin machine is out of control.
There was a guy on the news the other day talking about how whales where unhappy with the global warming and that because of it there where not going to mate as much.

People will attach anything and everything to "global warming" these days.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:45:17 AM , Rating: 5
> "Except that there is data over 1000's of years. "

You're confused. We have Antarctic ice records (the Vostok ice cores, EPICA, etc) that are thousands of years old...but these don't tell us the total amount of floating sea ice....and that's all there is at the North pole. The only ice on bedrock is at Antarctica or Greenland.

The "recorded history" for sea ice extent stretches back to 1979 only, the year satellite monitoring began. And what does that record show? Take a look for yourself:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

> "Some human beings will likely survive the warming of the earth, but it's likely that life on land will be completely wiped out"

Wow, talk about your tinfoil hat theories.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 7:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
You started off good, but to then claim that a few degrees extra heat in the atmosphere would reactivate volcanoes ...

Earth isn't static, but rapid changes in climates do lead to mass extinctions. Mankind would probably survive with some major losses caused by famines/droughts/etc. There's a discussion as to whether extra cloud cover would lead to a cooling or a slowing of the warming effect, etc, etc, the world's best trained climate scientists are working on this. Believe it or not, they're 10000x more qualified to talk about things than anyone here. I tend to believe the expert in the field's opinion in general in any aspect of life, but not politicians who bend things for their own good.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 8:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's not like this has not happened before....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576....

And what's wrong with more plant food in the air? Bring on global warming!!! It will help my garden.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By AntiM on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 5
> "Basically, as the water in the Artic ocean becomes less saline because of the influx of fresh water, then the currents that disperse the suns heat will cease to exists"

Oops -- what you're referring to is known as the thermohaline circulation shutodwn, and its already been widely discredited. A few rabid environmentalists didn't get the memo, but its not seriously discussed in scientific circles any more.


By dark matter on 6/30/2008 4:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, decreased salinaty affects have not been widely discredited.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/fu...

Unless of course you are going to provide your source.


By jbartabas on 6/30/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops -- what you're referring to is known as the thermohaline circulation shutodwn, and its already been widely discredited. A few rabid environmentalists didn't get the memo, but its not seriously discussed in scientific circles any more.


It is not "discredited" and it is certainly still very seriously discussed in scientific circles (i.e. conferences and peer reviewed publication).

I has however been qualified as a low probability high-impact scenario, but the possibility has certainly not been categorically excluded.


By omnicronx on 6/30/2008 8:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As the ice melts, the earth warms FASTER because more of the sun's energy is absorbed by water and land than by ice.
So wrong on so many levels, funny comment though, considering the earths average temperature has been on the decline last few years. I think many of you also missed this line
quote:
Fortunately, the North Pole ice is floating, and thus will not affect sea levels
Considering the slow pace in which it happens, desalination, which is just about the only thing to be afraid of here, is not really a concern either.

I just really wish people would remember that it is the south pole that contains nearly all of the worlds fresh water (nearly 90%). When it starts melting more than its yearly melt (something like 1/3 of the pole) then call me.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/3/2008 9:35:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You've misread your graph. The solid blue line is 2008 data, and is clearly above 2007.


I wouldn't say he's misread it, I'd say he's put his own spin on it; just as you have.


By AnnihilatorX on 6/30/2008 4:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
Arctic Sea ice rebounded last winter due to a cool winter. But recent New Scientist article (Too lazy to find which sorry) did mention that the new soft ice will unlikely to be sufficient to cover if this year's summer is hot, which the trend of temperature from last year shows it's going to be likely.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:27:51 AM , Rating: 4
Err, yes, oddly enough the ice re-freezes every winter.

However it doesn't freeze as thick as where it is several years thick, and thus melts quicker the next summer.

Once it has melted, the sun's energy is absorbed into the ocean, instead of being reflected into space. This accelerates the rate of melting in that area as the sea warms up.

I believe that the sea ice extent for this time of year is already below that at the same time last year. The minimal sea ice period is some time in September.

Global warming, or global climate change, is happening, be it cyclical, man-made, or just-is. Once we can get our heads around that, we can actually make real plans to deal with the consequences.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 6:03:59 AM , Rating: 5
> "I believe that the sea ice extent for this time of year is already below that at the same time last year"

No, Northern ice is slightly above, and Southern ice is substantially above. Both are higher than they were a year ago. See my link above for actual data.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:53:02 AM , Rating: 5
> "As the scientists say, a year or two ago they would have said 2013. Now they're putting bets on 2008 or 2009"

And a few years before that, they were saying 2050...and predicting Antarctica was warming rapidly too. That goes to show you just how inaccurate and immature climate models truly are.

> "The rate of fall-off is steeper overall, which is a worry."

Why? An ice-free arctic (which will happen eventually, of course-- it's been melting steadily for the last 7,000 years) would be the best thing for man. It would save millions of gallons of diesel fuel, for one, by allowing shipping through the Northwest passage, rather than the several-thousand-mile longer Panama route. It would unlock trillions of dollars of new resources and, of course, won't change sea levels in the slightest.

So why the panic?


By fk49 on 6/30/2008 11:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no! But what will happen to all of Al Gore's polar bears floating on sea ice?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:07:10 AM , Rating: 3
> "There're vast stores of carbon in permafrost and in ocean sediments and if they get warmer, they could significantly impact the rest of the world." "

Which of course is the same old doomsayer doublespeak. The problem with assuming large positive feedbacks from polar melting is that it doesn't fit the paleoclimatic record. The poles have melted many times in the past (Indeed, ice at the poles is a very temporary event, occurring at brief intervals between ice age interstitials).

And yet, in none of these past events have we seen unregulated warming. The temperature rises slightly -- an event that would be uniformly beneficial for us -- then negative feedback effects take over and the rise not only stops, but eventually begins to decline as well.

Current global climate models can't even begin to predict why this happens....which is irrefutable evidence they're still not considering the most important drivers for climate change.

> "In regards to "and, of course, won't change sea levels in the slightest.""

You might want to work on that reading comprehension a bit. My statement was clearly directed towards Arctic melting; it indeed will not change sea levels a single millimeter.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 12:18:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Am I then more likely to believe you, or a collaborator of..."

Believe them all you wish; it still doesn't change the fact they haven't given any firm prediction, just the weasel-language that it "might" impact us...with no firm explanation of just how it would do that, or what the actual effects would be.

The paleoclimatic record doesn't support large positive feedback effects, this is indisputable. Sure, there's always the possibility that *this* time around could be different than any other time in the Earth's past. But what are the chances of that?

> "Anyway- what did I misunderstand? "

I stated that Arctic melting would not impact sea levels; you attempted to counter that by pointing to Greenland, a different place entirely. That's either a misunderstanding or intentional intellectual malfeasance.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/2/2008 4:56:51 AM , Rating: 3
But seriously , how come everyone who argues against masher in this topic gets modded down every time?

While he gets modded up?

And others can write derogatory things about Mick and they get modded up, and while we try to tell Masher that the Arctic includes Greenland we get modded into tarpaulin?

This format with two people with opposite viewpoints posting blogs about the climate is good, I think, but if one is belligerent and gets modded to the skies while anyone who posts a counterpoint to him gets modded to death(no matter what they write, it seems), what's the point?


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By 4play on 7/3/2008 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
masher is a good writer, and effortlessly backs up his points with data. He is at a pro's level of debate vs all the amateurs that come on and pick a fight with him. All MMGW skeptics will boost his comments without thinking, while his points are good enough (and presented in a respectable manner) to stump MMGW advocates, who will in turn not rate him down. Also it is hard to rate up people who lose their cool and spew hate.

PS. I have no idea how to rate :p


By Andy35W on 7/3/2008 2:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
masher is a good writer, and effortlessly backs up his points with data. He is at a pro's level of debate vs all the amateurs that come on and pick a fight with him. All MMGW skeptics will boost his comments without thinking, while his points are good enough (and presented in a respectable manner) to stump MMGW advocates, who will in turn not rate him down. Also it is hard to rate up people who lose their cool and spew hate.


You are correct, he is a good writer. He also backs up his points by picked data. I do agree he's more professional than a lot of people who come on here and put the other view across, but then again he's posting at DailyTech and not a website such as realclimate.org where his responders will be a lot more professional I can assure you.

Of course both Jason and Michael cherry pick and then spin the arguement one way in their blogs. Jason tends to not say much after that and let the battle rage whilst Michael tends to weigh in (which is to be commended) but sometimes comes up short with forgetting basic science to try and google a point.

I find them both good reading though and Dalytech would be worse without them.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By Grabo on 7/3/2008 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
'Effortlessly'..yes, but not all references are very solid.
And his 'respectable manner' isn't always so respectable; he always expresses himself in definitives, 'flat out wrong', 'entirely incorrect', and likes to dismiss whatever counter argument's source flat ouf of hand.

I think he can write though, and argue, and certainly present his text well- but also that that's part of the problem. Perhaps people get a bit blinded by that?

There's certainly something off when you get down-rated for pointing out to him that Greenland is very much part of the Arctic, but yeah, as I was saying..


By 4play on 7/4/2008 11:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
At this point it doesn't matter if he's right or not. The point I was making was that people believe him because he seems to know his stuff. If he was arguing for the tobacco companies people would still believe him, simply because of his style, because he would instantly link you to data that disputes all your points.

I set the threshold to 4 and of the 22 comments that appeared 12 were masher's. The rest were mostly ridicule comments supporting masher, with the exception of 1.

It doesn't matter if your idea's are right or wrong, as long as you present in a way that appeals to people. Clearly, those that like masher stick around, while those who don't migrate to other blogs.


By robinthakur on 7/4/2008 6:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
Amen to that, Masher effortlessly defends his points and has a knowledge which really illuminates the fact that most of his detractors seem only to have watched The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth and bought into the whole Human-originated Climate Change myth.

Most people are simple-thinkers and do not realise the various agendas being chucked around or the hypocrisy of somebody complaining about climate change posting from a Laptop running on Lithium Ions or a pc powered by electricity derived from fossil fuels.

As the UK government has proved, Climate Change can offer a substantial source of revenues. Congestion charging, Home Environmental Packs, Car Tax increases, Toll Roads, Petrol where 70% of the cost is a tax, Rubbish Disposal only every 2 weeks and mandatory recycling with financial penalties for non-compliance are some which occur to me. For all of this "to combat global climate change" is tagged on at the end to reassure the population that the inconvenience and blatant theft has a basis which is in all our interests. How is all this 'environmental' revenue used? Nobody knows. Its nearly as bad as adding "Because God said so"

Here's an inconvenient truth for you, people want your money, and they are regrettably willing to say anything or do anything to get it. Scientists need funding, journalists need jobs, politicians require votes and the government requires revenues to offset the cost of fighting two large wars in the world today. And the wars are about Oil, what a coincidence...


By AlexWade on 6/30/2008 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
Arctic sea ice is about 0.5 million square KM above last year's record low.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
Antarctic sea ice is about 1 million square KM above last year's record high.

The obvious question is: how can there more ice yet less ice? Furthermore, if the Antarctic keeps up the pace, it will reach last year's record level 1 month earlier and break last year's record by about 3 million square KM. Obviously, there is no guarantee. For the past two months, the Antarctic has been gaining ice by about 3 million sq KM per month and peaks are reached mid to late September. The rate of growth would have to slow significantly and quick not to break last year's record.


By AlexWade on 6/30/2008 8:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
I wanted to put my opinion in a different post. This article is proof positive that climate change is not real. People are starting to realize the lies they are being fed. The traditional scare tactics aren't working anymore, so they must escalate. If climate change is caused by humans, why hide key information? Why try to scare people? Why not let reason take over?

People aren't scared, so they aren't going to fund the studies or read the paper or watch your program as much. To avoid drying up that honeypot, the advocates have to escalate. Of course, when the arctic ice does NOT disappear, do you think CNN or The Independent print a correction or a "I'm sorry"? Not at all, they want people to continue believe the lie.


By therealnickdanger on 6/30/2008 1:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's harsh... While I tend to disagree with many of Mr. Mick's conclusions, he brings a lot of great articles to the table. Besides, every contributor on this site is MOSTLY just "forwarding" news from other sites. DT is like a science/tech lens with which to view daily news.

I will say, once again, that Jason and Michael need to have their own section on DT. I'm thinking of a dual-column format, one topic, and a 2,000 word limit per topic. :P


By MrDiSante on 6/30/2008 1:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
You know, I don't even need to look at who wrote the articles anymore - if it looks like a load of baloney, you know Mick wrote it. I was half-way through the article and I felt that this read like a bunch of BS, perhaps Mick wrote it, and lo and behold I scroll up and I find that it was indeed him.

Mick, darling, stop writing crap, or if you absolutely must, go over to Engadget or Gizmodo, they're more receptive to this sort of garbage.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By pauldovi on 6/30/2008 12:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
Global warming is being used by socialist as a way to increase globalization and increase regulation at increasingly higher levels. The socialists will use the human induced global warming frenzy as a well to control and regulate people as they see fit.


By psychobriggsy on 6/30/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Most people are put off of global warming because governments are all too quick to rush in with "green" taxes, but never provide tax cuts as an incentive to use greener goods, only taxes to increase income from the use of non-green goods.

In addition most people's attention spans don't last to the tens of years, neither do governments. This means that simply because they haven't seen cities going underwater in the past few years, that global warming doesn't exist. They could in a 100 years however, but no country has a long-term government system that can devote itself to actually putting in long term efforts to mitigate the effects.


By Ringold on 6/30/2008 4:58:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but never provide tax cuts as an incentive to use greener goods


Eh? Wind power, at least here in the US, is subsidized to the point where it's hard to almost not make money. I wouldn't be shocked if a savvy accountant couldn't put a wind farm in the middle of no where, not connect it to the grid at all, and still manage to make profits appear from tax benefits.

The OP was probably more referring to the governments eagerness to use global warming to justify a vast expansion of macroeconomic control, recapturing control that governments had slowly been losing over the last couple decades due to the decline of socialism even in Europe. Political parties, both in Europe and America, are preparing to pick up the GW sword and wield it against a favorite enemy of many even before GW was an issue; free trade.

You can already hear it coming: US/EU industries will be facing carbon costs, while foreign ones will not be. The argument will then be to either hike tariffs on imports, increase subsidies for domestic firms, or a combination of both if not an outright ban on certain imports.

Global Warming is undeniably the White Knight of big-government statists the world over, descending from the sky to save shrinking government power from the prosperity and durability of free markets with an evil threat that can only inherently be battled through government action.


By HueyD on 6/30/2008 8:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
no, Man-made global warming is being used by politicians. It can't be the sun or solar activity because we can not control that.....


By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 1:46:07 AM , Rating: 1
I believe the article headline says that it's going to happen. It does not specify WHEN.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By smitty3268 on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:57:59 AM , Rating: 5
> "The pace that the ice has been melting over the last few years is completely different "

I repeat: Southern sea ice has been growing in recent years. In fact, last year it reached the highest point in all recorded history. (which again, like Northern Ice, only stretches back to 1979). Earlier this year in April, it set a new record for the highest it had ever been in that particular month.

See the actual data here:

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Apr...


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By dark matter on 6/30/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 5:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Can you explain why the last two results use different data types?"

Ask the researchers at CSU; it's their dataset, not mine. If you don't like their results, the team at UIUC reports the same:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

> Apart from 2008, 2007 and 2006 were shrinking compared to 2003-2005."

The overall trend is rising, as a simple linear regression shows, or anyone can see themselves from simply graphing th data.

Furthermore, you've misread the data; your above statement is incorrect. The FTP dataset I linked is April monthlies only. If you want to compare an entire year to another, you need to look at anomaly readings, which are graphed in the above link.

> "You are very liberal with the facts."

The facts are correct. I'm not responsible for your improper interpretation of them.


By smitty3268 on 6/30/2008 7:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I was referring to the ice at the North Pole, which is what this entire article is about. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on changing the topic to the South Pole ice cover - oh wait, I guess I do.


By excelsium on 6/30/2008 8:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Massive Global warming/cooling is a process that has gone on throughout earths history. No one can tell what is man made and what isn't at this point. We should learn how to manipulate the climate to improve living conditions for humans.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 8:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously.

Downrate me for saying this, but how is Jason still allowed to write for this site? I have found myself cringing when I see his name at the top of the page (which I do first thing before I read a word of the article) for about the last 4 months, because either A) It will be filled with subtle or deliberate bias, or B) It will be propaganda strewn with little regard for facts or even logic for that matter.

Jason, try to act like a professional for crying out loud and quite trying to make this place a forum for your personal bias towards GW and your stereotyping towards creationists.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 11:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
I should also mention that the proof is in the pudding. This was in the articles section at the time of my posting, and it's since been moved to Blogs much like many of his other articles due to the reasons I mentioned above.


RE: Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article
By just4U on 6/30/2008 12:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure DT want's it this way. Jason and Michael's climate articles tend to generate alot of interest. Plus the debate that follows and the flow of information generated is always extremely noteworthy. Typically if Jason "spins" it wrong we still leave pretty well informed thanks in part to the comments that come after it.

I think it's brilliant personally.


By bighairycamel on 6/30/2008 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think it's brilliant personally.


I would never consider biased and deliberately erroneous journalism to be brilliant. You say you like the discussion that it brings, but I say the end doesn't justify the means.


By just4U on 6/30/2008 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't it?

We see articles like this every day.. it's pretty much the norm. But here on DailyTech you come away with more then just the content within the article as people have a big long discussion on it all. Typically, you leave with alot more information to as links to other studies/articles are constantly thrown about.

This gives the reader (and those active in its discussion) the oportunity to have a real opinion and not one that's been forcefed to them.


By SilthDraeth on 6/30/2008 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
For one, you know Mick is wrong when he doesn't even try to argue his point beyond his initial story. I don't even read his stories any more, I just come in here to read Masher debunking the story, and check all replies to see if Mick defends anything.

I guess some people just like to abuse themselves. I wonder if he gets a kick out of posting patently false information?


By Lcook05 on 6/30/2008 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice if you quoted the entire statement...

quote:
I hope that I will not be pilloried by the community for being a part of this story. From what I can gather, it started with a piece in “National Geographic Online”, moved to a piece in “The Independent”, another piece on CNN, and then quickly grew out of all reasonable proportion. A positive feedback process. I’ll be the first to agree that losing the ice at the north pole this summer would be purely symbolic, but symbolism can be pretty darned powerful.


By johnsonx on 6/30/2008 7:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Another article on this I read said the artic ice sheet wasn't melting in the way people assume. Ocean current had carried the primary ice sheet south towards Greenland, leaving only a thin sheet at the actual pole. That thin sheet of new ice may well melt this year, but Santa's house and workshop are safe and sound near Greenland.


By johnsonx on 6/30/2008 7:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Another article on this I read said the artic ice sheet wasn't melting in the way people assume. Ocean current had carried the primary ice sheet south towards Greenland, leaving only a thin sheet at the actual pole. That thin sheet of new ice may well melt this year, but Santa's house and workshop are safe and sound near Greenland.


By Andy35W on 7/1/2008 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, a disappointingly inaccurate article


What you mean like this

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9725

" UN Admits to Long-term Alarmism over AIDS Epidemic "

The person saying alarmism, Helen Epstein has not even worked for the UN. So how does the UN admit to alarmism? They didn't, it's just another disappoingly inacurate sensationalist headline I'm afraid.

How many things can you get wrong?

Then there is the century of warming turned back in one year fiasco that even the original authors disowned you of when they read what you had written. Sensationalist journalism run riot was their summary I seem to recall.