Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report

[55Jay]

This continued attempt to strong arm the USA with guilt trips and public shaming, just isn't working anymore. 

 

Maintaining 3rd World/Developing Economy status has to be great, and totally avoids all the nonsense over ever-increasing environmental compliance costs and programs.    All you gotta do is say. "We are poor, ignorant, 3rd world peasants, we can't do it!", and get a pass from the, err, "smart", 1st world white folks. 

 

The poor, ignorant peasants then drive from home in a Mercedes and park up in front of their 20 million Baht air conditioned mansion wherein they slurp Mama noodles from a one-use styrofoam container with one-time chop sticks, thrown away in a non-biodegradable plastic bag, followed by taking a dump and flushing the toilet into the local watershed or the Bay.  Fed and bowels relieved, they settle onto the pleather couch sucking a beverage from a one-time plastic container through a plastic straw, turn on the 52" high def flat screen and watch the white folks rip each other's throats out on CNN about who among their ilk isn't doing and paying enough to Save the Planet.

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

"ACG stands for Anthropogenic Climate Change" You should think that one over.

 

I strongly disagree with the opinion that the IPCC has a consistent record of being overly conservative on it's projections. 

I do agree however that they do increase their rate of projected change with every report. The temperature increase since 2000 is about 0.2 degrees If you go from 1998 it is even less than that. That's 18 years. Do you really think that it will increase a further 0.5 in just 12 years? No of course it won't. There is no evidence to support a sharp increase in the rate of warming in the next few years. The IPCC is only shouting louder because people aren't listening any more.

Warmer is better anyway.

Actually the temperature increase from 2000 to now is 0.4

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

And thanks for showing the kind of misleading evidence that ACG deniers routinely employ whether consciously or as dupes. You're right that the rate of increase is less if you start from 1998. What you don't say and possibly don't know is that this was the year of an unusually strong El Nino which leads to unusually higher average global temperatures. Since that El Nino Year there have been 6 years that have had higher temperatures. only 2 of those years occurred during a strong EL Nino. So despite the lack of an El Nino for 4 of those years, the global average temperature was higher than during the year of a very strong El Nino. And the trendline clearly shows increasing temperatures at an increasing rate.

As for this nonsense about people not listening anymore, stop projecting:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/poll-shows-consensus-climate-policy-remains-strong/

And that's for the USA which has somewhat lower rate of acceptance of the scientific consensus than most of the rest of the developed world's population

And as for public support of renewable energy:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion

Edited October 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nuclear can provide all of it without adding any CO2 at all.

Too late, Big Green has you covered.

 

In this report, the IPCC has firmly come down against nuclear with the usual emotion-laden fact-free weasel-word caterwauling.

 

Quote

“Nuclear energy can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.”

 

This ignores all the inconvenient truths, including:

 

Multiple studies over 40 years have shown nuclear to be the safest way to provide reliable electricity.

 

Solar farms require up to 5,000 times more land per unit of energy than nuclear plants. In fact, solar energy is so expensive in part because it produces electricity at less than one-third of its rated power over a year, whereas nuclear plants run at full power over 90 percent of the year — something the IPCC report never explains.

 

The fact is, Big Green would rather gargle battery acid than allow everyone to have cheap reliable energy through nuclear power -- there would be no place for their rent-seeking activism.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Actually the temperature increase from 2000 to now is 0.4

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

And thanks for showing the kind of misleading evidence that ACG deniers routinely employ whether consciously or as dupes. You're right that the rate of increase is less if you start from 1998. What you don't say and possibly don't know is that this was the year of an unusually strong El Nino which leads to unusually higher average global temperatures. Since that El Nino Year there have been 6 years that have had higher temperatures. only 2 of those years occurred during a strong EL Nino. So despite the lack of an El Nino for 4 of those years, the global average temperature was higher than during the year of a very strong El Nino. And the trendline clearly shows increasing temperatures at an increasing rate.

As for this nonsense about people not listening anymore, stop projecting:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/poll-shows-consensus-climate-policy-remains-strong/

And that's for the USA which has somewhat lower rate of acceptance of the scientific consensus than most of the rest of the developed world's population

And as for public support of renewable energy:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion

Well I should have chosen my start date a little more carefully I now see that 2000 was the coldest year of the last 20.

But here is what NASA says about the rate of warming.

Quote

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

Link

Of course they can say that 2/3's of the warming was from the 70's because they neglect to talk about all the cooling after the 40's. From their own chart you can see the amount of warming from 1945 to today is just 0.5 degrees (over 70 years). If you go back to 1880 you see a gentle increase which works out to 0.05 degrees per decade. So I guess I was a bit hasty (lazy) to pick the year 2000 make a claim like I did. Thanks for making me look a little more critically to realize that the rate of warming, even considering I used NASA's oft corrected data, is much lower than I thought.

I don't think we are going to see a rise of 0.5 in the next 12 years.

 

Edit to add: I still think you're wrong about that ACG acronym. What does the G stand for?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by canuckamuck

[RickBradford]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Edit to add: I still think you're wrong about that ACG acronym. What does the G stand for?

Global, perhaps?

 

Anthropogenic Climate Global? Makes as much sense as anything else, when all it's used for is to stick before the lame insult 'denier'. Climate Global Anthropogenic? Global Anthropogenic Climate? Whatever works.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

EVs are as bad for alleged global warming as gas cars. Ya gots to burn something to make the juoice.

Nonsense. First off, renewable energy is rapidly growing as an energy source. Already solar and wind easily beat the cost of coal and and are already beginning to beat natural gas.  Just in the last week, a new rechargeable zinc oxide battery was unveiled that is far mor efficient than the best current lithium batteries and far cheaper to producee.  addition by supplying applying electricityi from a power plant you're able to more efficiently process the fuel. ANd as a bonus, it's a much more effective in controlling pollution..

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, 727Sky said:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/

 

Since Australia went to wind farms and solar they pay twice as much for their electricity than someone in N.Y. City which basically rapes people with their surcharges and taxes.

 

 

Austrialia's high electricity prices have nothing to do with solar and everything to do with policy incompetence.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/australias-energy-trainwreck-how-we-ended-up-with-the-worlds-highest-power-bills-20171006-gyvdci.html

https://www.finder.com.au/australian-electricity-prices-rising-decade

Already, around the world unsbusidized solar easily beats the cost of coal and is now competitive with natural gas.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I never criticized the conduct of any government in the slightest.

 

In my estimation, China is doing exactly what a smart government in its position would do.

 

Extract concessions from the West to help save the precious "historic" Paris climate accord, continue to pump out as much CO2 as it wants, develop renewable energy wherever it makes sense, and leave the West to flagellate itself into a moral panic as much as it wants.

Who cares if you criticized the conduct of any government? A transparent attempt at deflection. You made claims about the climate pact in relation to china and india and have been unable to answer the points I've raised.  And then you distort the facts by asserting that they " continue to pump out as much CO2 as it wants." You completely ignore that fact that China is by far the biggest builder of solar power generating facilities in the world.  

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Too late, Big Green has you covered.

 

In this report, the IPCC has firmly come down against nuclear with the usual emotion-laden fact-free weasel-word caterwauling.

 

 

This ignores all the inconvenient truths, including:

 

Multiple studies over 40 years have shown nuclear to be the safest way to provide reliable electricity.

 

Solar farms require up to 5,000 times more land per unit of energy than nuclear plants. In fact, solar energy is so expensive in part because it produces electricity at less than one-third of its rated power over a year, whereas nuclear plants run at full power over 90 percent of the year — something the IPCC report never explains.

 

The fact is, Big Green would rather gargle battery acid than allow everyone to have cheap reliable energy through nuclear power -- there would be no place for their rent-seeking activism.

"The fact is, Big Green would rather gargle battery acid than allow everyone to have cheap reliable energy through nuclear power"

Nuclear power cheap? Are you still living in the 1950's?

For one thing, nuclear power is very expensive: So expensive that the construction of these plants is failing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/construction-halted-south-carolina-nuclear-power-reactors-n788331

Nuclear power is by far the most expensive source for electricity. And projected costs from the industry consistently discout the cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants. Possibly there's a market for parties looking to make dirty nuclear weapons.

 

If nuclear power is so safe, why is it that private insurers refuse to insure the industry for more than a small fraction of its liability? In fact, even the nuclear power plant operators are on the hook for only a total of 13 billion in the event of a catastrophe. And if it goes over that, you know who has to pay for such a disaster? The US government.

And what happens to a nuclear plant when it 

 

ANd as for safety, the mining of uranium has had terrible effects on indigenous populations. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics

 

And what decade are you living in? Certainly not this one. Huge advances are being made in storage of electricity generated by renewables. The cost of solar cells has declined dramatically and efficiency has improved markedly. 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Global, perhaps?

 

Anthropogenic Climate Global? Makes as much sense as anything else, when all it's used for is to stick before the lame insult 'denier'. Climate Global Anthropogenic? Global Anthropogenic Climate? Whatever works.

Should have been ACC? And how is it an insult to call someone a denier of Anthropogenic Climate Change?  Are you saying that you accept that humans activity is causing the Average Global Temperature to rise? If so, I apologize for calling you a denier. But for the inaccuracy, not because it's an insult..

[poanoi]

15 hours ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...hahahaha...so funny!

Like the glaciers that have already disappeared and the fact, that the Greenland ice- shelf is the smallest in...like...forever!

But I guess, it doesn't get hot under your tin- foil hat, so you don't care!

its you who have a tinfoil hat here, swallowing the propaganda

and buying into the theory of man made climate change

[iroc4life]

17 hours ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...hahahaha...so funny!

Like the glaciers that have already disappeared and the fact, that the Greenland ice- shelf is the smallest in...like...forever!

But I guess, it doesn't get hot under your tin- foil hat, so you don't care!

OK , In theory lets say you are right and the world is warming. Do you think that the government taking away wealth, land, and lives will stop it or slow it? I think not. Its been said and taught for ever that the world has changed many times in the past before we were here, (Ice Age, What killed the Dino's) she will continue to change and there is nothing you can confiscate or control to stop her. 1 seismic event in the right place will alter our world in 1 day, much less 15 years from now, taking away everything and living off the land will stop nothing. It is a money and control grab period. Take off the tin foil hat and get your head on straight 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, iroc4life said:

OK , In theory lets say you are right and the world is warming. Do you think that the government taking away wealth, land, and lives will stop it or slow it? I think not. Its been said and taught for ever that the world has changed many times in the past before we were here, (Ice Age, What killed the Dino's) she will continue to change and there is nothing you can confiscate or control to stop her. 1 seismic event in the right place will alter our world in 1 day, much less 15 years from now, taking away everything and living off the land will stop nothing. It is a money and control grab period. Take off the tin foil hat and get your head on straight 

Because some catastrophes are out of human control that means self-inflicted ones are okay? What you clearly don't get is that whilest climate change is normal, the current rate of change is not.

[iroc4life]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Because some catastrophes are out of human control that means self-inflicted ones are okay? What you clearly don't get is that whilest climate change is normal, the current rate of change is not.

OK, even if thats true. Whats a TAX and or confiscation going to do to stop it???????? NOTHING

 

EDIT: Other than start another war and reduce the population which in turn will slow it a bit hahaha

Edited October 9, 2018 by iroc4life

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, iroc4life said:

OK, even if thats true. Whats a TAX and or confiscation going to do to stop it???????? NOTHING

 

EDIT: Other than start another war and reduce the population which in turn will slow it a bit hahaha

It's bizarre. Carbon taxes were actually the idea of conservatives. But that's back before the right-of-center started conjuring absurd conspiracy theories about science. And how exactly would carbon taxes start a war? But as the effects of climate change become more marked, especially in the poorer regions of the world and begin to create mass migrations, how do you think that will affect global stability?

[kannot]

BS

[kannot]

13 hours ago, 55Jay said:

This continued attempt to strong arm the USA with guilt trips and public shaming, just isn't working anymore. 

 

Maintaining 3rd World/Developing Economy status has to be great, and totally avoids all the nonsense over ever-increasing environmental compliance costs and programs.    All you gotta do is say. "We are poor, ignorant, 3rd world peasants, we can't do it!", and get a pass from the, err, "smart", 1st world white folks. 

 

The poor, ignorant peasants then drive from home in a Mercedes and park up in front of their 20 million Baht air conditioned mansion wherein they slurp Mama noodles from a one-use styrofoam container with one-time chop sticks, thrown away in a non-biodegradable plastic bag, followed by taking a dump and flushing the toilet into the local watershed or the Bay.  Fed and bowels relieved, they settle onto the pleather couch sucking a beverage from a one-time plastic container through a plastic straw, turn on the 52" high def flat screen and watch the white folks rip each other's throats out on CNN about who among their ilk isn't doing and paying enough to Save the Planet.

 

aint that the  truth!!

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Should have been ACC? And how is it an insult to call someone a denier of Anthropogenic Climate Change?  Are you saying that you accept that humans activity is causing the Average Global Temperature to rise? If so, I apologize for calling you a denier. But for the inaccuracy, not because it's an insult..

Shoud have been written as a declarative i.e. "Should have been ACC."

[kannot]

21 hours ago, DM07 said:

.forever!

Thats a very  long  time so i wouldnt be too sure about that????

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, 55Jay said:

This continued attempt to strong arm the USA with guilt trips and public shaming, just isn't working anymore. 

 

Maintaining 3rd World/Developing Economy status has to be great, and totally avoids all the nonsense over ever-increasing environmental compliance costs and programs.    All you gotta do is say. "We are poor, ignorant, 3rd world peasants, we can't do it!", and get a pass from the, err, "smart", 1st world white folks. 

 

The poor, ignorant peasants then drive from home in a Mercedes and park up in front of their 20 million Baht air conditioned mansion wherein they slurp Mama noodles from a one-use styrofoam container with one-time chop sticks, thrown away in a non-biodegradable plastic bag, followed by taking a dump and flushing the toilet into the local watershed or the Bay.  Fed and bowels relieved, they settle onto the pleather couch sucking a beverage from a one-time plastic container through a plastic straw, turn on the 52" high def flat screen and watch the white folks rip each other's throats out on CNN about who among their ilk isn't doing and paying enough to Save the Planet.

 

Actually the ignorance on display here is yours. Clearly you haven't a clue about economics and and how GDP per capita affects the feasibility of restructuring. And of course huge majorities in the USA, for one, favor the rapid development of green energy.

Edited October 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[kannot]

19 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Christ, don't give them ideas! 

 

Actually, that's exactly what Big Green has been saying for ages -- a 2016 article in New Republic is headlined "We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII."

 

It's the usual Big Green refrain - regulate, control, suppress, issue demands.

 

While we're on the subject of hysterical media, the headline from the OP is grossly misleading, trying to give the impression that global temperature will rise 1.5C from now to mid-century.

 

The scientists said that by mid-century, global temperatures may be 1.5C higher than they were in 1850, which is usually taken as the baseline for the industrial revolution.

 

We have already seen warming of 1C from 1850 to now with no evident catastrophe, so the remaining rise from now to mid-century is estimated ac 0.5C.

 

Of course, that doesn't sound scary enough for the media.

too afraid to answer im hiding in the under stairs cupboard, maybe ill come  out next century

[iroc4life]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's bizarre. Carbon taxes were actually the idea of conservatives. But that's back before the right-of-center started conjuring absurd conspiracy theories about science. And how exactly would carbon taxes start a war? But as the effects of climate change become more marked, especially in the poorer regions of the world and begin to create mass migrations, how do you think that will affect global stability?

It started as a tax and hype then it was the ice caps will be gone by 2014-15 now it worse. Now the greenies are talking land and industry confiscation and such. The world is going to go the way of now South Africa?? The US, UK, and EU are doing loads to reduce emissions and other pollutions but other parts of the world do nothing. New treaties give China and others 10+  years to get in line with others who pollute less already but they must pay now? Its about money and redistribution. I will say they have done a good job convincing the simple minded sheep of the world who like to protest and scream, losing all credibility to the rest of the public. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, iroc4life said:

It started as a tax and hype then it was the ice caps will be gone by 2014-15 now it worse. Now the greenies are talking land and industry confiscation and such. The world is going to go the way of now South Africa?? The US, UK, and EU are doing loads to reduce emissions and other pollutions but other parts of the world do nothing. New treaties give China and others 10+  years to get in line with others who pollute less already but they must pay now? Its about money and redistribution. I will say they have done a good job convincing the simple minded sheep of the world who like to protest and scream, losing all credibility to the rest of the public. 

Ice caps? I wasn't aware that there are ice caps? The only ice cap I know about is the Arctic.  And only one projection out of many said ice caps would be gone by now. And that was only for the summer. What is true is that the Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing.

And as for the nonsense of other nations doing nothing? China is by far the wordl's biggest builder of solar power facilities. Over half the world's recent expenses on said facilities were incurred by China. And this despite the fact that China's GDP per capita is 27% of the USA's.

[DM07]

6 hours ago, iroc4life said:

OK , In theory lets say you are right and the world is warming. Do you think that the government taking away wealth, land, and lives will stop it or slow it? I think not. Its been said and taught for ever that the world has changed many times in the past before we were here, (Ice Age, What killed the Dino's) she will continue to change and there is nothing you can confiscate or control to stop her. 1 seismic event in the right place will alter our world in 1 day, much less 15 years from now, taking away everything and living off the land will stop nothing. It is a money and control grab period. Take off the tin foil hat and get your head on straight 

What kind of an argument is that?
And who is taking away lives, to "stop climate change"?

Do you know, what the difference is, between the ice age and the dinosaur- times and now?

7 BILLION PEOPLE!

So I would somehow like people (scientists, governments, you...me...) to try and at least slow the process down!

Of course, you are right: one seismic event!

But following the same logic: you could be hit by a falling piano tomorrow, so why make plans for the coming weekend!

Jeeeezus!

Talk about tin foil- hats!

[DM07]

2 hours ago, kannot said:

Thats a very  long  time so i wouldnt be too sure about that????

It's a mighty long time...but I'm here to tell you: there's something else!

- Prince "Let's go crazy"- 

[RickBradford]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And only one projection out of many said ice caps would be gone by now.

You do come up with the most extraordinary balderdash. A whole raft of alarmist projections have been made about the disappearance of Arctic ice. And all of them have been wrong.

 

..

Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim - Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________

Canada.com – 16 November 2007
“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
[Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________

National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”

[Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
__________________

BBC – 12 December 2007
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
“…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
“If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________

Guardian – 17 September 2012
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-time professor]
__________________

Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

 

 

[Nyezhov]

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

You do come up with the most extraordinary balderdash. A whole raft of alarmist projections have been made about the disappearance of Arctic ice. And all of them have been wrong

Im old enough to remember the predicted upcoming Ice Age.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Im old enough to remember the predicted upcoming Ice Age.

I have a copy of an old CIA report from 1974 on exactly that subject.

 

They suggested that the new "boreal age" (aka ice age) would cause extreme weather, famines, mass migrations, instability and war.

 

Nothing changes, really.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

You do come up with the most extraordinary balderdash. A whole raft of alarmist projections have been made about the disappearance of Arctic ice. And all of them have been wrong.

 

..

Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim - Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________

Canada.com – 16 November 2007
“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
[Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________

National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”

[Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
__________________

BBC – 12 December 2007
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
“…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
“If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________

Guardian – 17 September 2012
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-time professor]
__________________

Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

 

 

I'm only aware of one model that called for an ice free summer in the Arctic to have occurred already. And that was Maslowski's. The big consensus is that the earliest it will happen is sometime in the 2030's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

What you and others ignore is how precipitous the decline is Arctic sea ice already has been.

 

And in fact, the decline in sea ice in the arctic is huge. S

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, kannot said:

too afraid to answer im hiding in the under stairs cupboard, maybe ill come  out next century

Good call.