(from o6^) "[*******#333333]If the [/COLOR]sheet of ice covering Greenland[*******#333333] were to completely melt, such destruction of 720,000 cubic miles (3 million cubic kilometers) of ice would [/COLOR]raise global sea levels[*******#333333] by 24 feet (7.3 meters). In summer 2012, Greenland saw an [/COLOR]extraordinarily large amount of melting[*******#333333] across nearly its entire ice sheet. In fact, it was the largest ice melt seen in Greenland since scientists began tracking melt rates there in 1979. Ice-core records suggest melting events so extreme have only happened once every 150 years or so over the past 4,000 years."
So, it has happened in the past, naturally, without humans smoking the planet up, and it was just about due- since I doubt the scientists have been tracking the melt for much more than 150 years. So, nothing to get excited about. Yet.[/COLOR]
Sadly, I was suspended for hotlinking an image in this post, so I'll repost the original post without the image.
[*******#333333]Quotes can be misconstrued, comments taken out of context and statements misinterpreted.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Again, the ice-age scare of the 70's was entirely media based, the gulf-stream scare of the early 2000's was entirely media based, and many more. Seriously, newspapers are no scientific studies. There are only a couple of direct quotes from scientists, most of whom are not even climatologists. For instance, Carl Sagan. He had no more credentials in climatology than I have. The only "real" climatologist I could find was the last quote by Dr. David Barber.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]He said this: [/COLOR][*******#FF0000][FONT=Times New Roman]"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],"[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Now here comes the fun thing, the article itself mentions that this is specifically referring to "first year ice", i.e. ice that formed during the winter, not multiple year old ice.[/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]"While much of the first-year ice melts in the summer, not all of it does, so we can't be sure it will melt at the Pole," he said. "We also don't know what the winds will be like this summer, and they play an important role in determining just what parts of the Arctic Ocean are ice-free."[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]Recent models suggest that the [/FONT][/COLOR]Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030[*******#000000][FONT=arial].[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Nobody ever suggested that the entire north-pole would be free of ice in 2008, they just spoke about the possibility, should the massive 2007 melting happen again, that the freshly frozen ice around the immediate north-pole could melt.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]This is what they were talking about, notice how the average thickness of 2008 ice is significantly lower, especially around the north-pole.[/COLOR]
I won't adress the rest of your post as you went to crazy-land in the second half of your post.
Once again Human emissions are over 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions combined.
Greenland, sattelite measurements... Khhmm, I would write long, but it's irrelevant here. Clouds and measurements don't combine...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Arctic sea ice extent in March 2013 averaged 15.04 million square kilometers (5.81 million square miles). This is 710,000 kilometers (274,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent, and 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which happened in 2006. Continuing a trend in recent winters, ice extent was near or below average levels throughout most of the Arctic, with the exception of higher extent in the Bering Sea.
Actually the ice levels are starting to recover: the process which will continue to the next decade...
It pays to read what is posted before responding to it. First, the CSM is not the source of the article. The source is OurAmazingPlanet.com. And second, science reporting mags are not "expert in science". They are reporters, not scientists. They are merely reporting on what actual scientific researchers, who are the experts, are doing. *>obvious<*
If you had bothered to read the article (which you clearly did not), you would have seen this:The source is a NOAA research scientist talking about his study."The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "We show that low-level clouds were instrumental in pushing temperatures up above freezing."