Arctic ice due to hit record low

[WX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307

Scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said data showed that the sea ice extent was tracking below the previous record low, set in 2007.
Latest figures show that on 13 August ice extent was 483,000 sq km (186,000 sq miles) below the previous record low for the same date five years ago.
The ice is expected to continue melting until mid- to late September.
"A new daily record... would be likely by the end of August," the centre's lead scientist, Ted Scambos, told Reuters.
"Chances are it will cross the previous record while we are still in ice retreat."

Okay, bring on the graphs that prove it's not so.

[Steve McMahon]

An inconvenient fact.

[John Smith]

God will take care of it. We trust in Him.

[skuthorp]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Anyhow it doesn't really matter unless you are worried about you children's and grandchildren's futures.
And as far as I can see it's way too late.

[The Bigfella]

How about someone just tell us how much of a heartbeat in time the records cover?

[PeterSibley]

How about NOW?

[skuthorp]

I'm just writing a short course in human history from public resources for our local U3A, starting about 3.6 million years ago with Lucy. Climate change has been constant, sea levels have risen and fallen and risen again, fertile areas have become deserts and back and forth several times, and our small ancestral tribe picked a winner when the Sahara bloomed for maybe 5,000 years and got into what is now the Red Sea but then was a fertile valley. Other hominid races in Africa didn't make it. I'm not saying that much of the change isn't natural cycle but a blind refusal to take the 'do no harm' position is a phenomenally stupid decision even for our hubristic species.

[RodSBT]

How far back do accurate records go?


The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

[Norman Bernstein]

How far back do accurate records go?


The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

'Direct' evidence (i.e., scientific observation) has only been gasthered for a VERY short time (in terms of the age of the earth). There is 'indirect' evidence going back tens of thousands of years, which might be less reliable, but nonetheless useful.

As for the 'key' issue (i.e., what portion of this warming is part of some natural cycle, versus which part is anthropogenic in nature), that answer is a LOT harder to obtain.

[CaptainKirk]

I'm so sick of hearing about global warming and that we're all doomed. Follow the money if you want the truth. Goldman Sachs is set for a windfall on carbon tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930