Recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears

That says how big it is, but not how thick it is. You've got to keep in mind that the climate is noisy, and you get spikes on both side of the trend-line.

You also have to keep in mind that the Daily Mail is a right-wing rag, with an enthusiasm for publishing denialist propaganda.

Gore's prediction was " ice free ". I think that implies no thickness.

Dan

mind that the climate is noisy, and you get spikes on both side of the tre nd-line.

with an enthusiasm for publishing denialist propaganda.

It wasn't - technically - a prediction but rather a warning about a plausib le worst case scenario. Promoting a warning to a prediction is one of the denialist press's routine straw men.

I regularly warn people that one of the - less likely but possible - conseq uences of global warming is that the Gulf Stream could turn off.

It happened most recently during the Younger Dryas

from 12,800 to 11,500 years ago, and made the east coast of North America a nd Western Europe quite a lot colder (and chunks of the southern hemisphere correspondingly warmer) for some 1300 years.

It's a warning - not a prediction - of one of the possible consequences of putting even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Al Gore's warning that the Arctic Ocean could become ice free in summer in a little as seven years was about timing - the Artic ice coverage is trendi ng down pretty rapidly, and the Arctic Ocan is obviously going to become ic e free some summer fairly soon, but predicting exactly when is tricky.

At the time he made the prediction, the first of the Argo buoys hadn't been launched. We are now starting to get a better handle on the antics of the ocean currents - like the Gulf Stream - that shift warm water from the trop ics towards the poles, and of the less well-known deep ocean currents that shift cold water back towards the equator.

Us polar BAERs are exstatic!

Bill,

why do you always judge the quality of information by the left/rightness (as defined by you) of the latest publisher. The Mail article actually quotes a range of different opinions and sources. This four legs good, two legs bad mantra you adopt so often does you , and your point of view, no credit.

Michael Kellett

But will be less so when reality reasserts itself. Short term noise may be making the polar bears happier at the moment, but the trend line says it won't last.

mind that the climate is noisy, and you get spikes on both side of the tre nd-line.

with an enthusiasm for publishing denialist propaganda.

(as defined by you) of the latest publisher.

Right-wing rags do tend to publish denialist propaganda. Rupert Murdoch doe s own a lot of them, and seems to have imitators.

The book "Merchants of Doubt" does go into the political background of the longer-established liar-for-hire firms

My opinion of the politics of the Daily Mail is shared by the New Yorker. T oday's issue has an article on Mary Beard which includes the line "For all the very right-wing slightly unpleasant populism that the "Mail" trades on ..."

s.

Twaddle. It's simple-minded rubbish, as is your response.

your point of view, no credit.

Sadly, you'd have to be one of George Orwell's sheep if think you can make that particular libel stick. The sheer quantity of denialist rubbish that e nds up getting drawn to the attention of this usegroup by our resident righ t-wing nit-wits is what discredits that particular point of view.

Well, Bill, it's good that you recognise the book, but a shame that you didn't understand it.

As ever you go for the man rather than the argument:

">> The Mail article actually quotes a range of different opinions and sources. > > Twaddle. It's simple-minded rubbish, as is your response."

The article DOES quote a range of different opinions, including a warning not to get carried away by one year's data. So where is the "twaddle" in my statement ?

The techniques *you* use in "discussion" are typical of totalitarian propaganda: chuck in a half truth or two, attempt to smear the source etc etc.

MK

Here's the data from NASA

in mind that the climate is noisy, and you get spikes on both side of the t rend-line.

, with an enthusiasm for publishing denialist propaganda.

ss (as defined by you) of the latest publisher.

does own a lot of them, and seems to have imitators.

the longer-established liar-for-hire firms

r. Today's issue has an article on Mary Beard which includes the line "For all the very right-wing slightly unpleasant populism that the "Mail" trades on ..."

rces.

and your point of view, no credit.

ake that particular libel stick. The sheer quantity of denialist rubbish th at ends up getting drawn to the attention of this usegroup by our resident right-wing nit-wits is what discredits that particular point of view.

didn't understand it.

I'd have to be as half-witted as you are to understand "Animal Farm" in the way that you do.

The argument is too trivial to bother with - I owe it to my more intelligen t readers to dissect the source of the inept argument.

ources.

warning not to get carried away by one year's data. So where is the "twaddle" in my statement ?

It doesn't quote a "range of opinions" but rather pillories a bunch of peop le who have had the temerity to warn of the possibility of an ice-free Arct ic Ocean in a few years. Al Gore is explicitly quoted as saying "it could b e completely gone in summer in as little as seven years". This isn't actual ly a prediction that it will be gone.

In so far as it does quote several scientists, this seems to be mainly aime d at providing the excuse to throw in "Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said l ast night: 'The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed" and treat her as if her opinion is worth as much as those of the other professo rs quoted.

Sourcewatch identifies her as a less-than-reliable source

paganda: chuck in a half truth or two, attempt to smear the source etc etc.

Odd that you should be able to recognise that technique in what I've writte n (where it doesn't happen to appear - my "truths" are backed up by facts, and the sources are being "smeared" by revealing the truth about them) whil e you couldn't see it in the original Daily Mail article.

IOW, "I am a _true_believer_, don't confuse me with the facts!".

...and the lefties are "anti religion".

...are you talking about that 6-footed,4-legged pig?

Darn! I FUR-got that!

Yeah, he does tend to do that.

Funny that I read the article and missed that. I guess it was lost is the haze of the large misleading graphics and really bad image of Al Gore, not to mention the the headlines referring to "Al Gore's prediction".

Huh? Are you talking about Bill or the Mail headlines?

Actually I think the scientists quoted in the article are saying the extreme ice melting of 2012 was due to short term noise and was an anomaly. That is not to say there is not a long term trend of the ice cap melting. But it is not nearly so apparent in the global ice measurements.

The facts are available - Wanderer posted a limited sample further down the thread - and widely known, though perhaps not by right-wing nitwits.

Krw parades his articles of faith. Since he's never produced a rational defence or justification of what he tells us that he believes, it's a slightly comical claim.

in mind that the climate is noisy, and you get spikes on both side of the trend-line.

g, with an enthusiasm for publishing denialist propaganda.

and your point of view, no credit.

make that particular libel stick. The sheer quantity of denialist rubbish t hat ends up getting drawn to the attention of this usegroup by our resident right-wing nit-wits is what discredits that particular point of view.

didn't understand it.

Saves time. There's not a lot of argument in the Daily Mail piece, and it r eally does need to be nailed as more denialist propaganda.

sources.

ng not to get carried away by one year's data. So where is the "twaddle" in my statement ?

e haze of the large misleading graphics and really bad image of Al Gore, not to mention the the headlines referring to "Al Gore's prediction".

The article isn't quoting any range of different opinions - it's just an or chestrated series of quotes designed to let them slip in

"Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Insti tute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: 'The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed"

and treat her as if her opinion is worth as much as those of the other prof essors quoted.

Sourcewatch identifies her as a less-than-reliable source

opaganda: chuck in a half truth or two, attempt to smear the source etc etc .

I've already posted my surprise at Michael Kellett's capacity to see this i n my post, but not in the original Daily Mail article.

be making the polar bears happier at the moment, but the trend line says i t won't last.

reme ice melting of 2012 was due to short term noise and was an anomaly. That is not to say there is not a long term trend of the ice cap melting. But it is not nearly so apparent in the global ice measuremen ts.

The Arctic sea ice isn't an "ice cap". The Arctic is warming up a lot faste r than the rest of the world precisely because the sea ice cover is shrinki ng - the albedo of of open water is a lot lower than that of floating sea i ce, and when the Arctic Ocean is pointed at the sun in high summer the open areas soak up a lot more heat than the ice-covered areas.

In this sense, global ice cover is irrelevant to to the discussion. In so f ar as our weather and our ocean currents are machines for shifting heat fro m the equator to the poles, the effect of melting all this Arctic ice on th e weather and the Gulf Stream gets interesting. Enough fresh water getting into the area where the Gulf Stream turns around slow down that particular circulation, and could stop it.

which could have dramatic effects on the climate around the North Atlantic.

True believers are simply amazing.

You're a liar, Slowman. Everyone knows it.