Hey porny, why don't you read about the reports and figure it out for yourself?
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/when-will-the-arctic-see-its-first-ice-free-summer/
Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/when-will-the-arctic-see-its-first-ice-free-summer/
Pornaddict bought the BS of a Physics.... yes Physics Nobel Prize Laureate who "studied" (by Googling) the Climate Change Science in "Half a Day", and then decided that it was a "hoax". He should have stuck to Physics as he made a clown out of himself when addressing the audience. They laughed like it was a comedy show, but pornaddict believed that it was the gospel truth. Hilarious!!
Pornaddict should stick to porn as he cannot go wrong there!!
Here another BS by climate alarmist!!! EPIC FAIL!! HILARIOUS!!! THAT YOUR GOSPEL TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE PREDICTION!! YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT!!
Here another fail prediction by climate alarmist
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
And that’s not the worst of it. Get a load of this:
‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,‘ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’
...
Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions
You really don't understand the articles that you post, do you?
This article is about a warning about a possible, though hopefully very much unlikely, sudden shutdown of the AMOC.
It isn't something they predicted that would happen, but instead is a warning that it can happen.
By the way, the AMOC has been reported to be slowing down. What nobody knows is whether there is a tipping point where it just stops.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ritical-to-world-weather-losing-steam-arctic/
You are right!
The amount of controlled burning was “ridiculously inadequate”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01...olled-burning-could-have-protected-australia/
Fight fire with fire: controlled burning could have protected AustraliaA kind of ecological fundamentalism has taken the place of common sense
Liam Sheahan was fined $50,000 by his local council for illegally clearing trees
His decision was vindicated when his house remained after Black Saturday fires
Every other home at Strath Creek, in central Victoria, was destroyed in the blaze
Mr Sheahan, 64, believes property owners should be allowed to clear their land
As fires rage in NSW, politicians refuse to discuss if preparations were adequate
By JOSH HANRAHAN FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 18:41 EST, 14 November 2019 | UPDATED: 22:47 EST, 14 November 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-cutting-trees-supports-hazard-reduction.html
A Black Saturday survivor whose home was the only one standing after the bushfires raged because he illegally cleared his land, says property owners should be allowed to take matters into their own hands if authorities don't act.
Liam Sheahan cleared trees and shrubs within 100 metres of his home in the hills at Strath Creek, central Victoria, in 2002 to create a firebreak in case bushfires ever hit.
While Mr Sheahan thought that was a 'common sense' decision, the local council did not, taking him to court where fines and legal costs left him $100,000 out of pocket.
However his decision to clear the land was vindicated on February 9, 2009, when his property was still standing after Black Saturday bushfires devastated the tiny town.
Mr Sheahan recounted his experience as debate rages in both New South Wales and Queensland about whether adequate hazard reduction and backburning has been performed in national parks, following 'catastrophic' fires in both states that left four dead and destroyed more than 150 homes.
Mr Sheahan firmly believes if he hadn't done his own 'illegal' hazard reduction before Black Saturday, his family would have died.
'When people move to the bush it's not so that they can clear it. We had a beautiful house with trees all around,' Mr Sheahan told Daily Mail Australia.
'We didn't want to cut everything down. We didn't do the Queensland solution which is to clear the entire block, but we just cleared the immediate yard around the house.
'On Black Saturday, after the fires came through, we were the only home left standing.
The fires at Strath Creek claimed one life, and 11 people died at nearby Hazeldene.
Hollywood legend Russell Crowe was also vindicated by his decision to take matters into his own hands this week when his home at Nana Glen, outside Coffs Harbour, in NSW, came under threat from the raging infernos.
The actor posted a photo of his home to Instagram on Thursday, saying: 'We cut this firebreak 10 years ago. It did its job exactly.'
While the Sheahans made it out of Black Saturday alive and with their house still standing, even with their preparations it was a close call.
Throughout the night of February 9 their home caught fire eight times. They also lost several sheds, a Range Rover and two Subarus, as well as a truck and trailer to ember attacks.
'I was in the Country Fire Authority, and so were my son and daughter, so we'd fought fires before and we thought we knew the risks, we thought we were well prepared if a fire came through,' Mr Sheahan said.
'But we found out that day that we were barely adequately prepared.'
Deadly fires in Canberra in January 2003, which killed four and destroyed 470 homes, and the Black Saturday fires in 2009 where 173 were killed, were both blamed on excessive dry fuel in the bush.
While hundreds of bushfires have burned across both NSW and Queensland over the past week, there are concerns that the worst is yet to come.
With a dangerously hot summer forecast, debate has turned to whether more hazard reduction efforts and back burning could have lessened the impact of the blazes.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian have both refused to be drawn into the debate, saying now it is not the time for politics.
'That's what they always say', claims Mr Sheahan, who believes it is the perfect time to discuss the policies on organised burns, before the consequences are once again forgotten.
'I think it's a combination of ideology and ignorance. You need three things for a fire: heat, oxygen and fuel,' he said.
'Now, we can't do much about the heat and we can't do much about the oxygen, so the only thing we have control over is the fuel.
'There's people who seriously believe organised burns are bad, but in Australia we've got really good fire services and they've only gotten better over the years.
'It's not like they come in and light a match and just let it burn down the whole forest.
'Animals aren't stupid, they don't just sit there and think "ah well, I'm going to fry to death"... they get out of there.
'But when a catastrophic fire happens like those we've seen recently the animals do burn to death and all the vegetation gets completely destroyed anyway.'
Despite being left in severe financial stress after his fight with Mitchell Shire Council, Mr Sheahan said if he had his time again he wouldn't change a thing.
He says as soon as the sun came up on February 10, 2009, it was clear he had made the right decision.
'We wouldn't be around if we hadn't cleared around our house. We were the only ones to survive,' Mr Sheahan said.
'In bush areas you make provisions for fires, just like if you live in an inner urban area that's a bit rough you take precautions about your personal safety.
'It's your home and you can't do it because of threats of a fine from council. I just find it ridiculous.
'It might not be today and it might not be for 10 years, but the reality is it will one day burn.
'It's Australia, that's what happens.'
You are all over the place with your nonsense on a daily basis. First your "expert" was a Nobel Prize laureate in Physics who learnt in half a day after googling on the internet that "Climate Change was a fraud" and we were supposed to believe it. But now you post what was a suppressed report that served as a warning about the extremes of climate change. Then you pretend that the bush fires in Australia etc. have nothing to do with "Climate Change" in the manner that they cannot be controlled due to the severity of the weather conditions that started totally out of season. But to you they are purely due to deliberately being started, even though they cannot be contained. We know that this will not be under control anytime soon. Go ask the firefighters who are battling it. That is also why they refused to shake the hand of a Climate Change Denier of a PM. This PM had to leave with his tail between his legs!!
Just stick to porn as you cannot go wrong with it!!
Something else is out of control in Australia: climate disaster denialism:
Myths about the bushfires grow online before finding their way into the rightwing press and the mouths of politicians:
The impacts of the climate crisis are now clearly manifesting in ways beyond rising temperatures. In Australia, the conditions for severe bushfires are occurring far more regularly (hot days, dry land and high winds). And the country is now suffering its most intense bushfire season ever. The quantity of land burnt, the smoke pollution impacts, the temperatures and number of homes lost are all breaking historical records.
At the same time, Australia is pioneering the denial of climate disaster.
There is some interesting research around denialism. Researchers have essentially discovered a strong political divide when it comes to climate science: progressives are much more likely to accept it as fact than conservatives. And presenting climate deniers with scientific information in the hope that they’ll change their minds actually reinforces their rejection, because they are so taken aback by the information.
This phenomenon affects solutions, too. If a policy proposal to reduce emissions conflicts with someone’s pre-existing beliefs – if it requires more government intervention in markets, for example – they tend to deny that the problem exists in the first place.
Over the course of the past decade, Australia was a laboratory for this type of thinking. Research has shown that “climate scepticism gets substantial favourable exposure in mainstream Australian media”. As a result, Ipsos polling finds that Australia lags behind other nations in “acknowledging the threat of climate change”. And a renewable energy target of 42% – proposed in a landmark report by Australia’s chief scientist – was rejected by the conservative government partly because the number sounded too close to the opposition’s 50%.
Rightwing media outlets in Australia have responded to the current bushfires by either refusing to give the story its due prominence or by spreading falsehoods. Specifically, there is a claim emerging that environmentalists have blocked hazard reduction efforts by supposedly opposing dry fuel loads being burned or manually removed. It isn’t one of those half-truths – there’s no truth in it at all. Once spread by a rightwing journalist over 10 years ago, it has been given a new lease of life as a meme on social media.
There is a trajectory for memes like this: the idea emerges in the fever swamps of denialist groups, it slowly seeps into fringe blogs, and from those blogs into Australia’s rightwing media. Then fringe political players take it up, and it’s consequently absorbed by leaders from major parties.
There is precedent for this phenomenon. In 2018, a fake Starbucks campaign supposedly offering free coffee to people of colour in the US was orchestrated on the 4chan message board; it was then featured on Fox News. There is already evidence emerging of 4chan boards trying to spread misinformation that fires are being started by Muslim terrorists.
The latest story doing the rounds is that the fires have been caused by arsonists or even climate activists – and it has been particularly potent. It is currently somewhere between the blogs and the rightwing media; I imagine that it’ll be in the papers – and on the lips of politicians – shortly.
In the comments of Sky News Australia tweets, the meme already dominates. The account of Gwyneth Montenegro, a “personal empowerment” influencer, tweeted to her 94k followers “climate terrorism, perhaps?”, which received thousands of retweets before being deleted. A Channel 7 Australia tweet declared that “Police are now working on the premise arson is to blame for much of the devastation caused this bushfire season”, receiving hundreds of retweets despite the voiceover in the clip stating: “7 News has been told that early indications are the south coast fires were likely started by lightning.”
It was retweeted by the BBC journalist Andrew Neil with the judgment: “appalling”. The Australian government MP Craig Kelly appeared on Good Morning Britain, insisting that the climate crisis is not to blame for the shocking intensity of the country-wide disaster.
Denialism comes directly from other leading Australian politicians. In 2013, this was more explicit, as when Tony Abbott said “fire is part of the Australian experience”, while then-environment minister Greg Hunt used Wikipedia to dismiss the link between the climate crisis and bushfires.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, always teeters at the edges of this style of disaster denialism, using coded digs that suggest there is nothing unusual about what’s going on. “We have faced these disasters before” and “I know how distressing that [smoke haze] has been, particularly for young people who haven’t seen it before” both stand out as examples of Morrison’s strategy: disguise straightforward climate denialism with appeals to “common sense”, collective memory or the misguided passions of young activists.
When he won the election in May 2019, Morrison declared it a victory for the “quiet Australians”. That may have been true, but there are far fewer quiet Australians left today, as hundreds of thousands have experienced the largest mass evacuation in the history of the country.
Still, anecdotal dispatches from Christmas dinner tables outline the success of rightwing memes in denying that Australia’s disaster is in any way related to the climate crisis. Morrison seals the deal, offering a comforting alternate reality that satisfies the craving to deny anything related to the climate crisis, whether it’s the science, the solutions or the impacts.
If it works, it’ll kick off another decade of sustained inaction in a country that has incredibly disproportionate influence on the world’s climate system. This time, we must nip it in the bud.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-bushfires-online-rightwing-press-politicians
Myths about the bushfires grow online before finding their way into the rightwing press and the mouths of politicians:
The impacts of the climate crisis are now clearly manifesting in ways beyond rising temperatures. In Australia, the conditions for severe bushfires are occurring far more regularly (hot days, dry land and high winds). And the country is now suffering its most intense bushfire season ever. The quantity of land burnt, the smoke pollution impacts, the temperatures and number of homes lost are all breaking historical records.
At the same time, Australia is pioneering the denial of climate disaster.
There is some interesting research around denialism. Researchers have essentially discovered a strong political divide when it comes to climate science: progressives are much more likely to accept it as fact than conservatives. And presenting climate deniers with scientific information in the hope that they’ll change their minds actually reinforces their rejection, because they are so taken aback by the information.
This phenomenon affects solutions, too. If a policy proposal to reduce emissions conflicts with someone’s pre-existing beliefs – if it requires more government intervention in markets, for example – they tend to deny that the problem exists in the first place.
Over the course of the past decade, Australia was a laboratory for this type of thinking. Research has shown that “climate scepticism gets substantial favourable exposure in mainstream Australian media”. As a result, Ipsos polling finds that Australia lags behind other nations in “acknowledging the threat of climate change”. And a renewable energy target of 42% – proposed in a landmark report by Australia’s chief scientist – was rejected by the conservative government partly because the number sounded too close to the opposition’s 50%.
Rightwing media outlets in Australia have responded to the current bushfires by either refusing to give the story its due prominence or by spreading falsehoods. Specifically, there is a claim emerging that environmentalists have blocked hazard reduction efforts by supposedly opposing dry fuel loads being burned or manually removed. It isn’t one of those half-truths – there’s no truth in it at all. Once spread by a rightwing journalist over 10 years ago, it has been given a new lease of life as a meme on social media.
There is a trajectory for memes like this: the idea emerges in the fever swamps of denialist groups, it slowly seeps into fringe blogs, and from those blogs into Australia’s rightwing media. Then fringe political players take it up, and it’s consequently absorbed by leaders from major parties.
There is precedent for this phenomenon. In 2018, a fake Starbucks campaign supposedly offering free coffee to people of colour in the US was orchestrated on the 4chan message board; it was then featured on Fox News. There is already evidence emerging of 4chan boards trying to spread misinformation that fires are being started by Muslim terrorists.
The latest story doing the rounds is that the fires have been caused by arsonists or even climate activists – and it has been particularly potent. It is currently somewhere between the blogs and the rightwing media; I imagine that it’ll be in the papers – and on the lips of politicians – shortly.
In the comments of Sky News Australia tweets, the meme already dominates. The account of Gwyneth Montenegro, a “personal empowerment” influencer, tweeted to her 94k followers “climate terrorism, perhaps?”, which received thousands of retweets before being deleted. A Channel 7 Australia tweet declared that “Police are now working on the premise arson is to blame for much of the devastation caused this bushfire season”, receiving hundreds of retweets despite the voiceover in the clip stating: “7 News has been told that early indications are the south coast fires were likely started by lightning.”
It was retweeted by the BBC journalist Andrew Neil with the judgment: “appalling”. The Australian government MP Craig Kelly appeared on Good Morning Britain, insisting that the climate crisis is not to blame for the shocking intensity of the country-wide disaster.
Denialism comes directly from other leading Australian politicians. In 2013, this was more explicit, as when Tony Abbott said “fire is part of the Australian experience”, while then-environment minister Greg Hunt used Wikipedia to dismiss the link between the climate crisis and bushfires.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, always teeters at the edges of this style of disaster denialism, using coded digs that suggest there is nothing unusual about what’s going on. “We have faced these disasters before” and “I know how distressing that [smoke haze] has been, particularly for young people who haven’t seen it before” both stand out as examples of Morrison’s strategy: disguise straightforward climate denialism with appeals to “common sense”, collective memory or the misguided passions of young activists.
When he won the election in May 2019, Morrison declared it a victory for the “quiet Australians”. That may have been true, but there are far fewer quiet Australians left today, as hundreds of thousands have experienced the largest mass evacuation in the history of the country.
Still, anecdotal dispatches from Christmas dinner tables outline the success of rightwing memes in denying that Australia’s disaster is in any way related to the climate crisis. Morrison seals the deal, offering a comforting alternate reality that satisfies the craving to deny anything related to the climate crisis, whether it’s the science, the solutions or the impacts.
If it works, it’ll kick off another decade of sustained inaction in a country that has incredibly disproportionate influence on the world’s climate system. This time, we must nip it in the bud.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-bushfires-online-rightwing-press-politicians
Glacier Park In Montana Set To Remove "Glaciers Will All Be Gone By 2020" Signs
Montana’s Glacier National Park is being forced to remove all signs that read “glaciers will all be gone by 2020,” after the doomsday scenario didn’t happen.
Some of the signs were already removed last year as it became clear the prediction wasn’t going to unfold.
Now the rest of the signs will have to be taken down too.
Glacier National Park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen “told MTN News that the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted. Because of this, the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020,” reports 8KPAX.----> see links
https://www.kpax.com/news/local-new...emove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs
In the late 90’s and early 2000s, scientists predicted that man-made global warming would cause melting glaciers, leading to rapidly rising sea levels that would sink coastal cities and towns.
The more dire forecasts have proven to be totally inaccurate and some glaciers are now growing.
Back in June, NASA reported see link---> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing
that the Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland had thickened and “has grown for the third year in a row.”
The glacier prediction is by no means the only forecast global warming alarmists have got spectacularly wrong.
Paul Erlich’s prediction that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation due to crop failure by the 1980’s also didn’t happen.
The 2004 prediction that major European cities would be underwater and that Britain would be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020 didn’t happen.
Al Gore’s doomsday warning that the Arctic would have ice free summers by 2013 didn’t happen either.
Maybe since these “experts” been caught lying time and time again, we should stop listening to them.
PS climate alarmist like you are so full of shit! None of their prediction come true and they always move their goal post on climate prediction further back when it don't come true!
PPS Why don't you wear a chicken outfit and run around a scream " Run for lives ... The sky is falling". You are so full of crap!
Here more failed bullshit from climate alarmist scientists.You are full of crap and should stick to porn, as you cannot go wrong there. First you cornered yourself by supporting Ginomore who was clueless what were the implications of stating that the "Average Temperature" was being Cherry Picked. Of course you cannot understand the mathematics if you take the average based on the start of the records. ie from 1910. That would have meant that the warm up would have been more severe.
Now you post some bullshit about the PHYSIC NOBEL LAUREATE who is not an EXPERT on CLIMATE and THE SCIENCE behind it. Those experts are CLIMATOLOGISTS. Maybe now you get it. Ginomore admitted that he spent just HALF A DAY on "GOOGLE" to study Climate and the Science behind it. Ridiculousness at it's heights, if you ask me:
That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.
In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:
Accuracy of the Surface Temperature Record - In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for - according to Giaever - 'making the global surface temperature record famous':
Giaever proceeded to question the accuracy of the surface temperature record, ultimately asking:
"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible."
Unfortunately this simply displays an ignorance regarding the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed time and time again, and which is also consistent with lower troposphere temperature measurements, as illustrated in the above graph.
Glenn Tramblyn has answered Giaever's question in great detail in his four part series Of Averages & Anomalies, and Kevin C also had an excellent and detailed post on recent temperature measurements in The GLOBAL global warming signal. The answers to these questions are out there for those who are willing to spend more than a few hours on Google searches, and it is not constructive to give presentations on subjects without first doing such basic research. We are again left wondering why Giaever was asked to give a presentation to Nobel Laureates on a subject on which he has no expertise and has not done even the most basic research.
The Significance of the Observed Global Warming
Giaever also disputed the significance of the measured 0.8°C average global surface warming over the past 130 years, comparing it to a human fever and the temperature at which he had to maintain tissue for cell growth during his own biophysical experiments, also showing the following slide:
Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years.
Eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line) over the past 12,000 years, plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature. The global average temperature in 2004 is also indicated.
In addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate - the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever's stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.
As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect "common sense" perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
I can go on and on. In other words you buy all the nonsense from people who do not have a clue, because they may try to be a jack of all trades, but in reality they maybe the master of one and in this case it is definitely NOT CLIMATE CHANGE!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
I can go on and on. In other words you buy all the nonsense from climate alarmist scientists ( which they receives billions on funding on climate research) and who do not have a clue! And this case it is definitely NOT CLIMATE CHANGE... Why don't you use your brain and opens your eyes !!
You do go on and on, but regurgitating the same nonsense that canadaman just posted.
Neither you nor canadaman can explain why every legit scientist who researched fossil fuels and climate change came up with the same answers.
The question Canada Man refuses or can't answer:
In the 80's both Exxon and Shell's own internal scientists did their own oil funded research and they came up with the same predictions as the IPCC.
So how can those findings be biased?
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
Bahahahahaha, "use your brain and open your eyes", and then you believe the bullshit of a Nobel Prize Laureate winner in PHYSICS, who spent half a day Googling Climate Change and then came up with what was debunked shit. You are living in another planet. But talking about Arctic Ice:
The Arctic Ocean has lost 95 percent of its oldest ice — a startling sign of what’s to come:
So Read the facts that have occurred and is the reality:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener.../arctic-is-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize/
Stop believing the online far right Climate Change Deniers for a Change. Well you are one of the 8% Canadians who cannot accept the reality of Climate Change!!
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
Real world
Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.
Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.
But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.
"The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors.
"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic.
But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models.
The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km.
The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km. In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms.
Diminishing returns
Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.
"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.
"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.
"Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."
Along the Northwest Passage
He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting.
Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years.
"The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
"There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.
Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."
Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
See below post by me
Glacier Park In Montana Set To Remove "Glaciers Will All Be Gone By 2020" Signs
Montana’s Glacier National Park is being forced to remove all signs that read “glaciers will all be gone by 2020,” after the doomsday scenario didn’t happen.
Some of the signs were already removed last year as it became clear the prediction wasn’t going to unfold.
Now the rest of the signs will have to be taken down too.
Glacier National Park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen “told MTN News that the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted. Because of this, the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020,” reports 8KPAX.----> see links
https://www.kpax.com/news/local-new...emove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs
In the late 90’s and early 2000s, scientists predicted that man-made global warming would cause melting glaciers, leading to rapidly rising sea levels that would sink coastal cities and towns.
The more dire forecasts have proven to be totally inaccurate and some glaciers are now growing.
Back in June, NASA reported see link---> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing
that the Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland had thickened and “has grown for the third year in a row.”
The glacier prediction is by no means the only forecast global warming alarmists have got spectacularly wrong.
Paul Erlich’s prediction that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation due to crop failure by the 1980’s also didn’t happen.
The 2004 prediction that major European cities would be underwater and that Britain would be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020 didn’t happen.
Al Gore’s doomsday warning that the Arctic would have ice free summers by 2013 didn’t happen either.
Maybe since these “experts” been caught lying time and time again, we should stop listening to them.
PS climate alarmist like you are so full of shit! None of their prediction come true and they always move their goal post on climate prediction further back when it don't come true!
PPS Why don't you wear a chicken outfit and run around a scream " Run for lives ... The sky is falling". You are so full of crap!
Again watch the video to decipher what is exactly occurring now. Are you saying that the 95% of the oldest and thickest Arctic Ice that is lost, will be coming back again??
So where did it go, then if it is not there any longer, unless you think that it was stolen!!
Yup.
Glacial melts will lead to droughts for quite a few countries, but the bigger problem is the polar melting.
Remember this?
Greenland Lost 12.5 Billion Tons of Ice in a Single Day
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ng-125-billion-tons-ice-single-day-180972808/
Antarctica ice melt has accelerated by 280% in the last 4 decades
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/world/climate-change-antarctica-ice-melt-twin-studies/index.html
The reason the Arctic and South poles are seeing the worst climate change is because of the depletion of the ozone layer, The layer is repairing itself very slowly. The layer at the poles is the weakest and will take the longest to repair. This was mostly caused by aerosol chemicals. Nobody even talks about this fact anymore. Fossil fuels have some affect on climate change but not nearly as much as the alarmists claim.
That's the most clueless explanation I've read here, and that's saying something.
Something tells me you have a degree from the Trump U and that this was your course study book.
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1535456868...A2QXg&creativeASIN=1535456868&tag=gawker0a-20
