We are all equally responsible for the melting of the Arctic sea ice. But to paraphrase the pigs in Animal Farm: Some are more responsible than others. Some will do their utmost to make sure the greatest geophysical experiment of all time is conducted to the very end. They are doing everything in their power to make absolutely sure that the Arctic will be ice-free year round before the end of this century. It's clear that without them this blog couldn't have existed.
And so I'd like to thank them from the heart of my bottom for the fantastic work they have done so far and the great success that awaits them in the near future. Thank you for your honesty, integrity and great love for all living beings on this planet that is yours!
I apologize to those who I've forgotten to include in this little animation, and the good people, politicians and companies behind the scenes who are supporting this holy work any way they can.
To paraphrase George Orwell's masterpiece again: The Arctic shall not melt out without cause.
"that the Arctic will be ice-free year round before the end of this century. "
Even if it was completely ice free by 1 May, would it be able to absorb enough energy to not to freeze through the winter?
Then again would be only be looking at Pliocene\ Miocene type temperatures?
Posted by: dorlomin | September 15, 2011 at 12:09
The sponsors of this blog will make sure we find out, dorlomin.
Posted by: Neven | September 15, 2011 at 12:11
That's an emissions scenario question. If we run CO2 up to nearly 1000 ppm as some would if they could, survivors will experience a much warmer world and much higher seas than such recent times.
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | September 15, 2011 at 12:16
Who recently wrote this was not a balanced blog on [Arctic] views? Just look above, the full deck of the opposite opinion and I say expressly opinion, as they only have the litany of grand omission in their recitals to show for. We have to be louder, but stick to fact, absolute.
P.S. Did not know that Pinocchio had a cross dressing twin brother.
Posted by: Seke Rob | September 15, 2011 at 12:18
So that is Antony Watts. He's...old? I assumed from his language he was some 20-something hyperactive geek.
Did I miss Dick Cheney and George "No, but I snorted all night at a Holiday Inn" Bush? The list goes on and on...
But I wonder... are we failing in something? I dated a feminist once, and I always go t the impression that as long as feminism was the 'anti-masculinity' theory, it would fail. Similarly, I think if we, if we really want to save the world, shouldn't be the 'anti- ???' movement but should have a definite posisitive plan. That's not to say I disagree with this sentiment, obviously I don't, but in the wider world of day to day life and motivating the masses, criticising the corrupt leaders of THEM seems like reducing the whole thing to an episode of Jersey (Geordie?) Shore.
Posted by: fred | September 15, 2011 at 12:20
Fred, like I say: We are all equally responsible, but some people are more responsible.
In the end the enemy is us, so it's not much use focusing exclusively on extremists, but as they are at the forefront of the collective consciousness, it's good to push back a little every now and again. However, it shouldn't be a substitute for meaningful action or an outlet for frustration at our own shortcomings.
That's why I only make this exception at the end of the melting season to express my gratitude. I'm not so interested in the other side anymore (Though I have my relapses). The collective consciousness changes at its own pace.
Posted by: Neven | September 15, 2011 at 12:27
And may I suggest a soundtrack?
(The video also doubles as a Spanish exercise, but that's, um, incidental.)
Posted by: Kevin McKinney | September 15, 2011 at 14:11
nevin, fair enough and well said. I didn't mean to put a damper on a well deserved and overdue bit of ridicule.
Posted by: fred | September 15, 2011 at 15:05
You know what's really depressing? They're all aging, balding men -- like me. All right, maybe not Pinocchio.
Couldn't you at least include Judith Curry, to make me feel better?
Posted by: Wayne Kernochan | September 15, 2011 at 15:56
dorlomin: "only" "Pliocene\ Miocene type temperatures?"
Summer heat waves would be more than inconvenient. With the faster water cycle, storms even without high wind speeds will be more than inconvenient. With climate disruption disrupting agriculture and ocean acidification disrupting our seafood, the price of a meal will be more than inconvenient.
Neven: Good post. However this fatalism
"The collective consciousness changes at its own pace."
is contrary to the post, and certainly not what the professional deniers think. Nor what you really think, I think.
Understanding changes in the Arctic is very valuable and helpful to the "collective consciousness" as well as to participants here. I thank everyone here for all your Arctic analysis. Keep it up! This will be part of what moves the collective consciousness toward serious emissions reduction sooner.
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | September 15, 2011 at 16:14
Well, let's put it this way: It's not what I hope.
I don't think things will be solved voluntarily, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and do nothing. I don't like ugliness, I don't want to be part of it.
Posted by: Neven | September 15, 2011 at 16:19
In line with Neven's request for something positive, here is the legislation that I would like to see implemented:
1. Impose a tax on negative externalities (e.g. pollution, green house gas emissions, deforestation, grazing, mining, etc.).
2. Refund the proceeds of said taxes equally per capita as taxable income.
3. Adjust needs-based benefits (including, but not limited to, welfare, unemployment, disability, and the minimum wage) to account for both inflation and the income received under #2.
(Although I usually picture this on a national level, it would also be wonderful to see #1 and #2 implemented on a world-wide scale -- picture countries which do more than their share of earth-damaging activity compensating countries which do less.)
Posted by: Bfraser | September 15, 2011 at 16:59
RealClimate has a post about the Arctic refreezing. The scientists intruded into a GCM run and zeroed out Arctic ice in the middle of summer. The ice returned to its prior state in around 2 years.
Now, it could be that there are states involved in a naturally occurring melt that aren't reflected in such a deus ex machina intrusion so that melt and freeze aren't the only factors involved. But, I don't get the impression that the "other factors" are hopeful.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | September 15, 2011 at 17:15
In the transition from the zone between where ice never melts out in the summer and the zone where ice always melts out in the summer, a period of multi-year ice could occur.
2007 was followed by a couple years of less melting and some recovery. Two slightly cooler years after one or more summer melt out years could allow some ice to reform.
But unless we do something about greenhouse gases any 'return of the ice' is going to be nothing but noise in the machine.
I'd bet that the model runs that returned the ice did not use 2007 weather or the weather we should see going forward....
Posted by: Bob Wallace | September 15, 2011 at 18:40
Neven, what a great shame you've done this! I came here for the facts about ice coverage and some really interesting science. Now you've contaminated it with politics. What a great pity that your excellent work now has to been seen through a certain perspective instead of for what it should be, scientific. More so because so many sceptics also gave great value to your work, a pity you have lost that trust.
Posted by: Karl | September 15, 2011 at 19:15
I'm with Neven on his post. Mis-information and propaganda are some of the strongest weapons that can be used to drive the masses to an opinion (or to mask the truth).
It happens during wars and atrocities, it happens when politicians want to misdirect and misinform, and it happens when big business wants to keep getting away with whatever they are doing for profit. World War II, Iraq invasion, cigarette industry... its a long list.
To call out the propaganda machine is not a bad thing. Its a call to wake up, to not be lazy, to do some research, to understand the facts, and then to do something about it in the face of powerful people and a lot of money. After all, this blog, for the 2 years that I've been following (quietly), should have that purpose.... call out drastic changes happening in our world by us, and to inform. Telling readers about the mis-informers out there is also useful information.
The sarcasm just gives it some punch. Thanks Neven, I read your blog daily and have learned volumes over two years, from you and your contributors.
Posted by: Mark Kosir | September 15, 2011 at 19:45
I strongly agree with Neven's post, and for a very simple reason: The evidence of what humanity is doing to the environment, and therefore to itself, is overwhelming and literally surrounds us. The evidence that the people he included in his animation are more responsible than most is every bit as overwhelming. (Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration is urged to read the book Merchants of Doubt. It has more detail about what many of these people have done to fight progress on everything from cigarette smoking to climate than you can imagine without having read the book.)
Given all that, it is not a case of making things political by bringing up such culpability, but merely an instance of following facts through to their logical conclusion.
And Neven is right -- we're all responsible for this bloody mess. My parents and earlier generations can be largely (but not entirely) excused on the basis of simple ignorance. But this is 2011, and that excuse no longer applies to us. We are ripping carbon out of the ground and aerosolizing it as quickly as we can, to the tune of 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year, and in the process consigning future generations to "hell and high water". And the kids running around today and generations unborn are all our kids and our responsibility, whether they're "ours" in the genetic sense, or merely "someone else's".
Can we avert some truly nightmarish consequences? Absolutely. What will it takes to make enough of us wake up, shun our financial and ideological incentives to do what is in our own best interest? No one knows, but one way or the other we're about to find out sometime within the next decade or two, I would guess....
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | September 15, 2011 at 20:10
Karl, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I had to get this off my chest.
I have never hidden the fact that I'm alarmed at what I see happening in the Arctic (and elsewhere), but I try very hard to call the shots as factually as I can. I don't think I scorn the trust of true skeptics with one such post, of which there won't be many (it's tiresome). And if I did, I really couldn't care much. People come here to learn together with me, or they don't.
The melting season has ended, this was a statement I had been thinking about making for quite a while. Reading the way this year's melting season has been received in some quarters, gave me the final push.
Et voilà, now back to the ice.
Posted by: Neven | September 15, 2011 at 22:58
Neven, these old white mean are mere errand boys, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
The real Actors, and thus the people most personally responsible, are the Pollutocrats like David H. Koch and Rex W. Tillerson, to name just two.
400-odd billionaires that direct the World economy have done the macabre arithmetic, and arrived at the startling conclusion that sacrificing a livable climate in exchange for a few additional decades of growth will not affect their bottom lines.
Indeed.
Posted by: Artful Dodger | September 16, 2011 at 09:00
Karl, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I had to get this off my chest.
Absolutely. You've put a ton of work into running this madhouse, through the ups and downs of what has truly been a remarkable and record-breaking season in the Arctic. I can't believe someone would object to your using one brief post at the end of the season to express your opinion about the larger issue.
Neven, thanks for hosting all the discussions here over the past few months, and thanks for reminding us that the ongoing decline in Arctic sea ice isn't something that just spontaneously happens on its own. Humans (in general) are responsible for these changes, and some humans in particular are doing everything possible to obscure that fact.
Posted by: Ned Ward | September 16, 2011 at 14:33
"many sceptics also gave great value to your work, a pity you have lost that trust."
Please. Who are you trying to kid?
The overwhelming majority of "skeptics" are doing everything they can to avoid the truth. There is no trust to be lost.
As for avoiding politics, that is impossible. The Republican party has made denying science one of their primary planks. It needs to be pointed out as often as possible that they have no credible basis for their extreme anti-scientific views.
Posted by: D | September 16, 2011 at 16:32
Has science become so corrupted and coloured by politics from all sides that we can no longer just do science? I think the last comments, sadly, show this to be the case.
Posted by: Karl | September 16, 2011 at 16:52
The overwhelming majority of "skeptics" are doing everything they can to avoid the truth.
Absolutely. The self-labeled "skeptics" are nothing but intentional deniers who are trying to hide behind the claim of skepticism while they fight the facts.
These deniers arrive at the investigation with their final decision in hand and then look for bits and pieces they can use to support their preordained outcome, discarding facts which do not support their self-created reality.
Anyone who has spent any time on this site sees a group of participants who look at all the facts and tune their opinions of what the outcome may be as new facts emerge.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | September 16, 2011 at 17:09
Karl, please. You haven't been paying attention. The men Neven mocked aren't doing science.
And since when is Science not part of the world we all live in? Scientists aren't something apart.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | September 16, 2011 at 19:36
Has science become so corrupted and coloured by politics from all sides that we can no longer just do science? I think the last comments, sadly, show this to be the case.
This is a blog for people interested in Arctic sea ice, not the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Neven.
Some of us may happen to be practicing scientists. Believe it or not, we are actually still allowed to have personal opinions about politics and other issues. That doesn't mean science or scientists are "corrupt".
If I'm giving a talk at AGU (or, more realistically, at its equivalent in my own field) I'm just going to stick to the science. Here on Neven's blog, there's a bit more freedom for speculations and personal opinions.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if scientists have opinions about anything related to politics, they are ipso facto corrupt. Do you have any opinions about politics or other controversial issues? I'd be perfectly willing to assume that you are still able to consider facts objectively, when you need to, in spite of holding some opinions. Why not grant that same respect to other people?
Posted by: Ned Ward | September 16, 2011 at 20:19
Well let's put it simply, Neven's site was a place I came for science, I'm afraid it is sadly moving into the same catergory as Climate Progress and WUWT et al. All I was commenting on was, is it asking too much to have just the science? I mean there are plenty of sites for politics etc...
And as for science being influenced by politics etc, I can hear a Granny sucking very loudly on an egg... :)
Posted by: Karl | September 16, 2011 at 21:53
Well let's put it simply, Neven's site was a place I came for science, I'm afraid it is sadly moving into the same catergory as Climate Progress and WUWT et al. All I was commenting on was, is it asking too much to have just the science?
There have been, what ... 60, 70, 80, ? posts here this summer. One of them, at the very end of the season, bothers you.
Why not just ignore it? It's not even ten sentences long! Do you insist that every website you visit must not contain even a single brief post that doesn't fit your own preferences?
Posted by: Ned Ward | September 16, 2011 at 22:08
Thanks to you too, Ned. It's a pleasure having you here.
Karl, again: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I had to get this off my chest. I promise I won't do it often.
Posted by: Neven | September 16, 2011 at 23:15
Speaking as an aging, bald, thickening-in-the-middle white guy with extensive experience with the US military/industrial complex I think Neven is spot-on with this post.
Those "skeptics" who will use this post as an excuse to disbelieve what science says about climate change will use any pretext to prosecute an agenda full of cognitive dissonance and ideological bias.
And those that abet them by belaboring over tone are enabling them. And thus no different.
We are in a war of primacy between science and those who would have us lay aside common sense and logic in favor of investments, dollars and fingers stuck into animal entrails with nothing less than the survival of our grandchildren and all who may come after them at stake.
If that offends some: Good. Wake up.
/Rant
Posted by: Daniel Bailey | September 17, 2011 at 00:06
Karl said More so because so many sceptics also gave great value to your work,
Do you have ONE example where the self-proclaimed 'skeptics' that Neven talks about "gave great value" to his work ?
Posted by: Rob Dekker | September 17, 2011 at 01:12
Rob, yes the evidence is from sceptical sites that reference Neven's site. That surely is a good thing? As for bias free science, well as someone who teaches science in a major university I guess I know it can be done and dare I say it, should be done? Even if it is difficult at times, I'll leave the politics etc to the other faculties. Maybe as scientists we do need to take back the ownership of science from special interest groups and people who are using science to advance their own agendas rather than advance science. A scary idea at present I know but maybe we could start by reminding people that the application of science is called technology.
For example the work by Rutherford,Bohr, Becquerel, the Curies, Einstein etc on atomic structures which led to nuclear physics was science, the work done on the Manhattan Project building an atom bomb was technology and engineering.
How folk use technology, well that can have as many political, economic, social contexts etc as you like and that’s where they should be debated. Is it so bad, just for a change, to just have the science?
Or put it this way, isn’t it enough to want to understand the physical world around us and then leave it to other places and people to add whatever value to that understanding as they deem fit?
I guess that's all I am going to say on the matter as I really do appreciate Neven's considerable work on providing us all with this marvellous resource.
Posted by: Karl | September 17, 2011 at 02:05
Karl said Rob, yes the evidence is from sceptical sites that reference Neven's site.
Which specific site or post do you refer to ?
Posted by: Rob Dekker | September 17, 2011 at 02:15
Rob, please do not feed the trolls. Really. Just let it go.
Posted by: Artful Dodger | September 17, 2011 at 06:38
Rob how about one from yesterday,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/16/arctic-ice-refreezing-after-falling-short-of-2007/
Even I can not get more up to date than that, not without having a crystal ball, that is! Neven has establish this site as one respected by all, isn't that a good thing?
Mr Dodger, read what is written, not what is not.
Posted by: Karl | September 17, 2011 at 08:44
Karl, Lodger is right. You have a nice day, OK ?
Posted by: Rob Dekker | September 17, 2011 at 09:39
@Artful Dodger: "Do not feed the trolls.
Got it in one. Couldn't agree more.
Henry
Posted by: H Barnard | September 17, 2011 at 09:54
BTW the pigs were the bad guys in Animal farm so saying some are more responsible than others make you appear to be on the side of the pigs.
Anyhow, I used to think this site was about science, not the goofy trash talk that one finds on the other blogs.
Posted by: Blairius Blair | September 17, 2011 at 17:32
Looks to me like fossil fuel interests are working to suppress awareness of their major players.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | September 17, 2011 at 18:05
@ Blairius Blair
This site does focus on science. To ignore the existence of denialism is to wear The Emperor's New Clothes.
You can not participate in such threads as these if you like. That won't make the denialists nor their attack on science go away.
Posted by: Daniel Bailey | September 17, 2011 at 20:01
First post of this thread I asked a question about an assumption in Nevens post. I am happiest doing that, asking quetions and being akward. But simply being able to ask questions does not an alternative theory make.
Neven has struck a good tone in this post, asking questions is good, but the ability to ask questions does not mean you have a better explanation and those listed in this post pretty much make a meal out of every scrap of doubt they can lay their hands on.
Posted by: dorlomin | September 18, 2011 at 01:01
If one has respect for science, it is only natural to want to defend it against people who abuse it so horribly, and to make sure others know the real story. I see this post as 100% consistent with respect for science.
Thanks, Neven.
Posted by: Notonlythatbut.wordpress.com | September 19, 2011 at 17:40