The British Film Institute (BFI) has restored footage taken during Ernest Shackleton’s Imperial Trans-Antarctic expedition, including the poignant moment the ship’s mast collapses as Endurance is crushed by sea ice. Despite the sailors’ perilous predicament, Shackleton insisted the nitrate film was salvaged. The remastered work is part of a collection depicting early 20th century Antarctic exploration.

I have to agree, since they also claim NO other starving polar bears were seen in 2017, and that sea ice didn't break up early, but in fact it was measured at around 5000km3 in September 2017 and the mean volume since 1979 is around 12000km3 in September, and average ice thickness was the lowest ever recorded for most of the year in 2017....when these articles were published.

The truth is, that IS what climate change LOOKS like, very few articles actually attributed this particular bears condition to climate change. Only those wishing to intentionally misread in order to contradict their own intentional misunderstanding didn't understand that. Lies indeed.

It reminds me of my brother denouncing the numbers on mass school shootings because in some, only one person was killed (but multiple shot), claiming that "mass shooting" meant "mass murder" was his way of debunking the argument and then denying there is a problem.

Right wing debate strategy....Step one, misrepresent a claim. Step two, prove that misrepresentation wrong. Step three, claim that debunks the entire argument the claim was supporting.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

Firstly, it's the same logic FoxNews uses so why can't I?

" Looks it's snowing. Global-warming, my ass!"

Secondly, weeks of unseasonal whether ARE evidence of a Change in Climate.

Combine this with the fact that..

More than 45% of the Arctic Ice Cap has melted away since the 80s..

And it's clear that the rapidly industrializing Eastern world has vastly accelerated Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global Warming.

Why can't conservative accept facts?

It was explained in the link in the description, but it was so they could compare datasets between the ground and remote measurements:

The objective, which was accomplished during Operation IceBridge’s March 19 inaugural flight of the 2015 Arctic campaign, was for the C-130 to overfly a survey field located on an ice floe next to the vessel, while taking remote measurements of snow and sea ice thickness. The survey field was almost simultaneously measured from the ground by the ship-bound researchers, so that scientists can compare both datasets in coming months.

Have they thought that it could be an 'increase' in sea ice because the Antarctic ice sheets are flowing into the sea so much faster? It makes perfect sense to me, and also would explain why the Arctic is shrinking while the Antarctic ice sheet is 'growing'.
I want to see a study of the total AMMOUNT of ice, not the SIZE of ice. A square mile of ice paper thin is less ice than a cubic hectometer (100x100x100meters). Without measuring thickness, "size" means nothing.

I'm not an expert on climate change and I assume you have not devoted your life to climate science either.

From what I can ascertain, your links suggest a hiatus in warming not a reversal of trend.

To quote the BBC link:

"Prof Tung believes that whatever the cause and the length of the pause, we are on a "rising staircase" when it comes to global temperatures that will become apparent when the Atlantic current switches again.

At the end we will be on the rising part of the staircase, and the rate of warming there will be very fast, just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th Century, plus we are starting off at a higher plateau. The temperatures and the effects will be more severe."

And the LA Times link:

"Climate skeptics have pounced on this apparent discrepancy, citing it as proof that climate change isn't real, or at least that scientists don't completely understand it. But those who study Antarctic sea ice say their curious observations shouldn't shake anyone's confidence. Dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and extreme weather around the world are proof enough the planet is warming, they say; the only question is how these changes affect the Antarctic as they ripple through the climate system."

Again, I'm no expert. I don't presume that casual Internet research will enable me to properly evaluate and scrutinise academic articles and accurately assess their value within the broader rationale for acting against the purported harm caused by climate change.

Which is why I defer to organisations of scientists. If they overwhelmingly continue to believe that climate change is a threat, then so do I. If they change their views, so will I.

Why is this not the most reasonable approach?

Please don't call them skeptics. They're not. Skepicism is the questioning of ideas or beliefs until presented with evidence that supports them, and it's a Good Thing(tm).

With climate change, there is overwhelming evidence to show that it's real, it's happening now and it's man made.

The people that don't accept it aren't skpetics, they're in denial. We don't call creationists "evolution skeptics", don't give AGW deniers a more elevated position.

Oh, and @A-Winston, you won't believe Nye because he's "only a mechanical engineer" (ignoring the 97% of actual climate scientists that agree with him) but you're perfectly happy to believe an author (someone who makes up stories for a living!) and whose book is full of

flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming, and controversies over sea level rise estimates

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

This is just a distraction. Obviously the attendees at Bilderberg are not doing anything about "climate change" one way or the other.

(The Roman Republic also had Tribunes of "the People" who could veto laws. It made no difference at all to the lifestyle and activities of the Patricians, Senators, and military men of the Republic. If you -- who clearly has no influence over what the state does or doesn't do -- think that you "are the government," then I have little interest in trying to "cure" you of that delusion (unless you're a paying client of mine). And, by some definitions -- that ultimately make no practical difference -- you "are" the government, then I have every confidence that you can and will "deal with these issues" yourself to your satisfaction. And I wish you the best of luck!)

My goal is to never attend one of Art Carden's classes,

A bottle's worth of water is worth a whole lot to someone in the third world dying of thirst,

You can't do shit with a diamond dumbass. The whole reason diamonds are valuable is because they are kept artificially scarce and over the years De Beers successfully marketed them as desirable ("a girl's best friend", song: "diamonds are forever".

The business that earns the most profit by using resources is Exxon Mobil, and is quickly helping to turn the earth into an unsustainable rock.

Restrictions on trade cause poverty? What about the restriction on the trade of human beings, I bet that's really hurting your pocket book eh you fucking neo-con wank. I'm not going to post anything for this one because if you actually believe this you are beyond grasping any reason.
I mean just look at the poverty that unrestricted trade causes in the USA, how can anyone still claim that an unregulated free market is ethical?

This whole video is bullshit. I can't believe this is tagged with philosophy.

Anyting for a thrill.... This must have been quite an experience. However, we are all likely to share the same one. Today I read on Science Daily : "Large Variations in Arctic Sea Ice: Polar Ice Much Less Stable Than Previously Thought, Study Finds"... so we'are in for a treat, sooner or later.

Below is a couple paragraphs about Christopher Booker, taken from an article titled "The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation".


For several years he has been waging a similar war against "warmist alarmists", by which he means climate scientists. Nine days ago, for instance, he attacked Michael Mann for publishing a paper that shows (alongside scores of other studies) that global temperatures do indeed follow the famous hockey-stick pattern: a moderate long-term cooling trend terminating in a sudden upward bend. Mann, Booker told his readers, had been "selective ... in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Medieval Warming". But Mann's paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses every uncluttered high-resolution proxy temperature record in the public domain. How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.

Under their guidance he routinely mistakes weather for climate and makes claims about the temperature record that bear no relation to the studies he cites. My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.

Full article can be found here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows


"The rate of ice loss in the Arctic is accelerating rapidly, scientists say.

According to data from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea ice (shown in white)—some 280,000 square miles (725,000 square kilometers), or an area the size of Texas."

National Geographic