It's all over but for the sweating?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But you know what? There were and are people living all around the shores of the Arctic Ocean. If there were severe melts or freezes, they likely would have remembered and passed on the stories.

This is "solid evidence" ? Fairies have more credibility (and look nicer).

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Arragonis - Just saw this recently on UCTV

I'm going to watch that later, it might also be worth posting in the "I love science" thread.

EDIT - Watched the opening - there is a department for cold war studies - wow

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by radioranger

I think its a big fallacy ... the left ... and the left ... The left ... thus our decline. just my 02

Oh, OK.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This is "solid evidence" ? Fairies have more credibility (and look nicer).

Oh? Are we being just a bit culturalist in proclaiming that statements made by members of non-European cultures are inherently not credible? It's not even a case of oral tradition: the 1930s are within reasonable living memory.

Isn't it amazing the way people can come up with excuses to avoid dealing with inconvenient data?

[Arragonis]

You brought the faries into this not me - you go and placate the princess, the queen and the cakes or they'll turn you pink

But seeing as you want to persue it, how about some more Inconvenient "Data" ?

Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world? Science is asking these questions (says “Popular Science Siftings”). Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitsbergen and the Eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. Observations to that effect have covered the last five years during which the warmth has been steadily increasing.

...

Many of the old landmarks are greatly altered, or no longer exist. Where formerly there were great masses of ice, these have melted away, leaving behind them accumulations of earth and stones such as geologists call “moraines.” At many points where glaciers extended far into the sea half a dozen years ago they have now entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has brought great changes in the plant and animal life of the Arctic. Formerly vast shoals of whitefish were found in the waters round Spitzbergen, but last summer the fishermen sought them in vain.

This is in 1923. So the ice has retreated and grown back inside of 20 years.

But this wasn't my point anyway

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

So the ice has retreated and grown back inside of 20 years.

Sure, but how much? That's the important question.

But this wasn't my point anyway

Then what esactly is your point?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure, but how much? That's the important question.

And what/how 20th century (or earlier) "observations" might contribute to this.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Then what esactly is your point?

It was posted here.

Assuming that our "solid evidence" is correct - there was a big melt in 1923 and a big freeze in 1938 (and ?? in between) the next question is whether the reconstructions of earlier periods would show those kinds of "spikes" given what happened last summer (a spike downwards).

As a seperate question we also have to ask how the graph that Neil posted includes "observations" from about 1850 onwards and how they are linked to satelites which have been in place only since 1979 ? Should they be on the same graph or noted as being different ?

No fairies involved.

Dragons, now those guys are really unreliable...

[Arragonis]

Don't know if anyone noticed, but NOAA has stated that last year's drought was nothing to do with climate change ?

Consult "the google".

[NeilBlanchard]

We have a way to measure the extent of ice, and as I understand it, it has to do with the different way sediments on the ocean bottom collect under the ice and under open water.

The melting now is unprecedented in recorded history. If all the ice melts in the summer, then that is the first time in like a million years or more that this has happened.

Edit: here's the Danish map from August 1923: http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/...23/1923_08.pdf It is melted around the edges, but not nearly what we have seen recently.

If the drought continues or reoccurs soon, it will be due to climate change. This may be a matter of semantics, though. The climate has changed, and so whatever happens will be part of the "new" climate conditions.

The drought is continuing and worse than 2012 and 2011:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ses-the-issue/

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Assuming that our "solid evidence" is correct - there was a big melt in 1923 and a big freeze in 1938 (and ?? in between) the next question is whether the reconstructions of earlier periods would show those kinds of "spikes" given what happened last summer (a spike downwards).

I don't quite get it. The "big melt" described in that article does show up on the reconstruction graph, and it's only a fraction of the melting observed today.

As a seperate question we also have to ask how the graph that Neil posted includes "observations" from about 1850 onwards and how they are linked to satelites which have been in place only since 1979 ? Should they be on the same graph or noted as being different ?

Seems obvious to me. There is a period of time for which they have both satellite observations and the data from which the reconstruction was done. The satellite observations are overlaid on the graph to show that for that period, the reconstruction is a very good match to satellite data.