Dear denialists:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The collapse of an ice bridge at the South Pole and record thinning of Arctic ice at the North Pole, indicate the global climate is warming faster than thought, and prompts international calls for action.

April 6

Category: UnScience, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

18 Responses to “Ice Melting at North AND South Poles”

  1. tracycoyle says:

    Is it a little disingenuous to post a video from 2009 when reported ice in Antarctica is at a record level this year?

    And yes, I am a ‘denier’ in that I consider AGW to be a political position, not a scientific one. Global climate changes all the time, warmer, colder.

  2. There is no doubt that the climate changes. Indeed, quite dramatically throughout history. However, I do doubt very much the claims regarding “man-made global warming”. There are outside influences 100X larger that effect the climate….That’s reality. With that said, I am very much against the pollution of our waters and our air….but for health reasons completely separate from the temperature…..

  3. formerlawyer says:

    @tracycoyle Says: & WallStreetRanter Says:


  4. JimInMissoula says:

    I am always puzzled why people are so passionate on the denial side of this issue. They want 100% proof – which is impossible. Given that your readership is not innumerate or stupid, one would think that an actuarial approach would recommend itself. If there’s a 2% chance that I will be crushed by a falling piano on my walk to work, I may opt to take the bus, even though there’s a very good chance that I could stroll in unscathed.

    The odds that scientists are correct about AGW are greater than zero – I think that’s undeniable. They are also less than 100%. We make decisions all the time based on less than full certainty by (very roughly) weighing the cost of the consequences multiplied by the probability vs the cost of prevention. The costs of inaction are probably very large, so even if you think there’s a low percent chance of AGW, it may behoove you to act – unless of course you’re just counting on being dead before the sh*t hits the fan.

    Certainly the world has been both cooler and warmer at various points, but there has never been a population of 7 billion people during such extremes. It is a risky experiment we are running.

  5. tracycoyle says:

    No one that I know is seeking 100%, even 50% would be nice, but if you want to change your path for the day on a 2% chance, that is your choice – changing our economy on such a chance is destructive. The cost to mitigate the claimed (IPCC) worse case scenario is abject poverty for a greater percentage of the population than is already suffering.

    Sorry, our climate is like a 100 piece puzzle and after putting together one edge, the consensus is that it is a picture of waves crashing into the 5th floor of the Empire State Building. If our climate is so fragile that a change in a co2 of .0002 is the ENTIRE fulcrum that our climate sits on, it is a wonder we have survived so far. BTW, I have noticed that the rise in co2 over the last 80 years has been pretty steady, passing 394ppm recently, but that temperatures have not been so steady in their climb. Wonder what is causing that divergence. Solar minimum? Ocean cycles? Must be the QUALITY of the co2 not being what it used to be….

  6. drtomaso says:

    AGW denialists are like creationists in that they never bother to read the links they post to to “disprove” any asserted claim that climate change may in fact be happening/may in fact be man-made. From the Washington Post blog referenced above:

    “Moreover, the long term rate of decline in Arctic ice obliterates the converse rate of increase in the Antarctic. In August, for example, Arctic sea ice is declining at a rate of 10 percent per decade since 1979 compared to an increase of 0.6 percent per decade in the Antarctic. ”

    So yes, in September, sea ice in the Antarctic (where it is winter after all) was growing, and covered the second largest size on record since they started recording in 1979, and may soon eclipse that record. However, from the same damned article:

    “If we look at current Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents compared to their 1979-2000 averages, Arctic sea ice is almost 50 percent below average whereas Antarctic sea ice is just between 5 and 10 percent above average.
    It’s not that we should dismiss the Antarctic difference from average. At some two standard deviations from (above) the mean, that signifies there’s just about a 5 percent chance of this happening (assuming a normal distribution). But the Arctic difference from average is in an entirely different universe statistically speaking, way, way beyond two standards deviations from (below) the mean.”

    Put it another way- the growth in the antarctic has the same probability as a black swan market event, which everyone who reads this blog knows will happen on a long enough time horizon, and you damned well better have some hedges in place to pull your portfolio out of the toilet when they do. The arctic ice shrink on the other hand, is the environmental equivalent of multiple black swans happening all at the same time.

  7. JimInMissoula says:

    I take back what I said about (lack of) innumeracy among readers of this blog based on tracycoyles response above… It is funny how certain deniers are of economic apocalypse if anybody lifts a finger to tax carbon, cap/trade, whatever… but they are dead certain we have a hardy, manly climate and that any change to that climate would have only the smallest economic effect.

    The fact that deniers cannot even consider that they might be wrong is baffling to me. I am happy to admit that I might be wrong. I hope I am wrong. But wishing won’t necessarily make it so.

  8. tracycoyle says:

    Actually, I read the article. And I made a point that obviously was lost – the original story linked from 2009 indicated significant loss of Arctic and Antarctica ice and the article I posted indicated record Antarctica ice this year. Obviously the mechanism touted in the 2009 video is NOT the mechanism that is currently creating the strong divergence between our poles. If in fact the reason for record ice now was known back in 2009, why was record ice not predicted. The point is that over the 1990′s we were told they knew what was driving the climate and could predict not only the next 10 years, but the next 100.

    In IPCC AR4: “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {WGI 10.3, 10.6, SPM; WGII 15.3.4} It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will become more frequent. {SYR Table 3.2; WGI 10.3, SPM}
    Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea-surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones”

    “The last two calendar years saw a total of 146 global tropical cyclones, the lowest 2-year total in records since at least 1970. In the past 24-months, including ongoing Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone activity, there have been a total of 141 global tropical storms. This is also a record low. ”

    When the doom is based on predictive models that actually fail to predict, I tend to think the doom is over-rated.

  9. tracycoyle says:

    How many of you invest with people that under-perform every year for 10 years (even if they get the trend right)?

  10. Greg0658 says:

    I know the earth globe is dynamic .. and the equator is hotter because of direct year round waves from the sun .. warm are rises and the northern hemisphere is physically up .. if the dynamic currents stopped would the north pole be hotter by that fact alone?

  11. Greg0658 says:

    duh – didn’t see till now .. ‘warm AIR rises and the northern hemisphere is physically up’ .. and to defunct myself – I’d say “there is no up in space” .. buutt still asking

  12. romerjt says:

    “I have noticed that the rise in co2 over the last 80 years has been pretty steady, passing 394ppm recently, but that temperatures have not been so steady in their climb.”

    Really, what do you mean by “steady” ? This statement seems to based on the ridiculous metaphor that the earth is like a roast put in the oven and will heat uniformly. The CO2 is released at a fairly constant rate into a very dynamic system and becomes part of what creates the weather. Are you saying that for you to recognize the increase in temperature that is taking place each year will have to warmer than the last everywhere. I don’t think anyone is claiming that.

  13. romerjt says:

    For reasons unrelated to Sandy I recently used the NOAA site to record the monthly average temperature for Albany, NY (near where I live) from Jan. 2001 today and compared them to the 30 yr normal 1970-2000.

    How many of the 142 months were warmer / cooler than average, 50-50?, nope – 98/44 months warmer than normal, for every one month colder than normal, 2 warmer than normal.

    How many of the years were warmer / cooler than normal? 50-50, NOPE, only one of the twelve years was colder than normal.

    The average temperature over the period increased for each of the 12 months but the months that warmed the most were August (2.5 degrees) and September (2.9 degrees). If that’s not something to make you go hummmmmm 2 hurricanes in New York in 2 years?

    We have 3 years in a row where the average temperature is going to at least 2 degree warmer than normal and 2012 could top 4 degrees. That’s huge. In the last 3 years, only 4 months were colder than normal, the winter of 2011 (but the year was warmer).

    And then there was March 2012, an outlier, over 10 degrees warmer than normal in Albany and the warmest March on record (1895) in the US.

    Does all of this prove AGW, no of course not. But is does prove that the weather where I live is behaving in way consistent with AGW. I urge you to use the NOAA site to get the data from where you live then go outside, pay attention to the plants and animals and bugs . . . there are signals in that noise.

  14. constantnormal says:

    memo to deniers:

    Science is based on two things, a thesis, and support of that thesis. The “support” takes one of two forms.

    The first (and preferable) is experimental support, where an experiment is devised that will succeed or fail based on the thesis being correct or false. Much independent testing is required to validate the results of the experiment, and a lot of arguments about whether or not the experiment is a valid test of the thesis.

    The second, where the first is practical or impossible, is a mathematical model, which then is exposed to the same process of testing and verification.

    There are no perfect models of global climate. Full stop. None. So we are left with imperfect models, and the process of selecting the best one, which will be an imperfect model at best. But we much use the best model we have and work to improve upon it.

    Cosmological science has done this well, having seen several models that are increasingly homing in on a view of the universe that the vast bulk of the evidence fits within. Tectonic plate theory has followed a similar path.

    Global climate change deniers have yet to produce any models that even remotely accept the vast amount of data collected to date, from ocean temperature studies, to ancient ice cores, to paleontological evidence, satellite data, and astronomical data. Their pattern appears to be to seize a single data element, show how the accepted GCC models do not perfectly accept that data, and then to throw out the best models we have, offering none/nada/zero/zilch competing models in their place, at least none that accommodate the huge body of accumulated data. And also to mount well-financed personal attacks on traditional global climate change scientists, which all by itself should discredit the deniers.

    The deniers can take their place with the flat-earthers and astrologers.

  15. tracycoyle says:

    romerjt: they have a ‘global average temperature’ that does not show a strong correlation to co2. if co2 is the driving factor, the correlation would be stronger.

    I do not dispute we are warmer, however, 1) how much warmer is definitely in dispute; 2) ‘why’ is subject to considerably more than the co2 going into the atmosphere.

    As to your local climate – ask England about the last couple of winters.

  16. maggiemaggie says:

    I was just thinking yesterday that it was indisputable that ice was melting and seas were rising and I do not understand how anyone can see the science as political – so thank you tracycoyle for letting me see how the other side is thinking.

    A friend told me to think about health food freaks who have outlandish theories and can’t be dissuaded, then think of those people as having unlimited access to Koch Bros funds.

  17. romerjt says:

    tracycolye: It snowed in Britain, so what? This conjures up what I call the “roast in the oven” metaphor that skeptics use or fall for, that AGW can be disproved if it isn’t getting warmer everywhere every year. Really? I mean really when you think of all the different terrain, elevations, proximity to water, all the thousands of combinations, how realistic is it to think that they all will react to an increase in temperature the same way every year?

    2012 so far, is the warmest year on record in the US yet Pacific Northwest had record lows. Locally the 2010 winter was colder than normal, yet the year was actually warmer than normal. If you want people to be more open to you views you might drop the “it snowed in Britain” argument, no one is saying what you seem to think it disproves.

    Here’s what I don’t understand about the CO2 stuff from your point, I mean you can debunk this study, argue with the numbers in another, but what’s your point? Are you saying we can add unlimited amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere indefinitely and nothing will happen to the weather?

    Do you have any science that for that? The skeptics to do more than refute the claims. If you want people to support policies that allow unlimited addition of CO2 through fossil fuels, we need some actual, at the molecular level, proof it won’t affect the weather – ever? Do you know of any?

  18. JackWayne says:

    Ever notice how when guys like Barry talk about Gobal Warming they forget the Man-Made (AGW) descriptor? But when they criticize “deniers” they use the descriptor? FWIW, I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who denies Climate Change. But there’s a lot of people who believe that it’s not proven that it’s currently man-made. But keep beating those strawmen. It’ll keep you warm when AGW doesn’t happen.