New York City will be flooded by the year 2100 if polar ice caps continue melting at this rate. Those billions of pounds of water don't just vanish into deep space. And neither do the billions of pounds of extra carbon dioxide and methane that are causing it...

New York City will look like Venice where the first floors of buildings are abandoned and flooded.

And Venice will be closing off all the second floors of buildings.

.

jas, take a lude and calm down. You sound like a T-pub worrying that your yacht will be taxed away! These are just the facts, you dont have to do anything unless you want a future for your children.

BULL!! This satellite image is no doubt photo-shopped! Just as the brilliant scientific minds like Rush Lintballs, Simple Sarah Palin, Blowhard Bachman, Teabagger Beck, and the circus clowns down at Fox Noise.

You imply he has, or will have children? They allow such things to breed? We are truly in the "Deep Fryer" now.

Melting ice in a glass does not raise the water in a glass so why the ocean?

here and there: "Antarctica's ice has grown 30 percent the past 20 years."

An absolute lie, and obviously ridiculous.

And nobody was ever caught lying about anything.

txrbt: "Melting ice in a glass does not raise the water in a glass so why the ocean?"

The melting of the Arctic ice sheet itself should not raise the sea level much, because that is already floating in water. But most of the ice in the world is on land, and it melts too.

@here and there:
Antarctica's ice has grown 30 percent the past 20 years. World net ice is the same as 20 years ago.

You missed out several important caveats: The winter extent of Antarctic's sea ice has grown 30% in the past few decades. The summer extent has shrunk over the same time.

The loss/gain of sea ice does not affect sea levels (think about it: melting ice cubes in your drink don't raise the level of liquid in your glass). However less sea ice in summer decreases albedo which increases warming, which melts more ice. The increase in Antarctic winter ice is not attributable to lower temperatures but to low stratospheric ozone and a freshening (by increased precipitation) of the southern oceans.

What is more important is the reduction in land ice, mainly of the two major ice sheets: Greenland and Antarctica. This does affect sea levels. Both Antarctica and Greenland are each losing about 200 GTonne/yr - which represents a total sea level rise of over 1mm/yr.

Also, no one has been "busted lying about their data", rather all have been exonerated.

In addition a climate change skeptic has just finished analyzing decades worth of raw data and has come to the same conclusion as NOAA, NASA and other climate scientists...average global temperatures are rising and their rate of rise also seems to be rising.

So you get a sorta 1 out of 3 on your statements. And even the one you get right is incomplete.

@passiveobserver: Brush up on Archimede's Principle. Melting sea ice will have no effect on New York City or anywhere else.

HOw does this differ from similar photos from other years? Anyone have the pix?

jasperark-1270934

You stated that: "The ice is melting !!! The ice is melting !!! Run away !!! Run away!!!"

I think you meant to say: Swim away!!! Swim away!!!

Shaking my head,

Try this link:

http://www.arctic.io/sea-ice-charts/

Everything you ever wanted to know about arctic sea ice - satellite photos, graphs, thickness - you name it.

Cynic, no one is questioning the melting of sea ice on the level of the ocean. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet which is on land so therefore it will raise the level of the sea if it melts. That doesn't include the glacier ice on the continent Greenland.

Physicist-retired

Everything you ever wanted to know about arctic sea ice.

All I need to know is that: it's cold, wet and there's not much left.

@here and there: how's your campaign for Flat Earth Society President going? Don't worry - you've got my vote.

Gotta love the "scientists" in here who have yet to imagine that ice melting over land can raise a sea level.

It's truly amazing that all the stupid kids who couldn't pass a science test on their best day in their k-12 years, now show up here as stupid adults to deny AGW.

txrbt-3516720

Melting ice in a glass does not raise the water in a glass so why the ocean?

Quite true. However, there is a great deal of ice contained in icecaps in Greenland, Antarctica and the other islands in the Arctic. It is true that there has been less ice loss in the Antarctic vs. the Arctic but that is because ocean currents play less of a factor on the Antarctic ice sheets than they do on the Arctic sea ice. But as climatic feedbacks increase the Antarctic ice will also disappear.

And yes Dante, when ice melts on the land, it results in liquid water. Increases in liquid water will raise the sea level.

Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started as TASSC. In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web(i.e. junkscience.com and derivatives) or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about, there is more than consensus AGW is real.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/12/01/alaska-appeals-for-icebreakers/

Please act immediately!

Instead of spending billions of Dollars on the greatest scam ever devised: "Carbon Credits", send ME the money instead. This will have precisely the same effect on global ice levels as giving the money to Al Gore or Franklin Raines (who hold a patent on the idea), but I promise I will enjoy it more..

We need to face reality, we are destroying the world. In 10,000 years the world is going to be a totally different place.

For many of yoiu ignorant bible thumpers, this is twice the age of the earth, I know your feble minds can not comprehend these numbers but that is not going to stop it from happening.

In 10,000 years, one half of the species in the world will be gone. Shipping our manufacturing over to China or Indai or Brazil is noit going to solve the problem, we need to be more responsible. I for one am not willing to destroy our only home so that a few select individuals are able to become extremely wealthy.

when will you guys learn that the earth goes through hot and cold cycle?!?!

we know that the world has had a few ice ages right? also we know that the sun has its 13 year cycle that is peaking at its 11th/12th year of solar flare activity, (doesn't that send more heat out?) quit falling into the "global warming" scare.

yes humans are ruining the earth but not because of the things we operate, it's because of deforestation, over hunting/fishing.

when will you guys learn that the earth goes through hot and cold cycle?!?!

Oh, damn - I can't believe we forgot about that.

All those decades of work down the drain. But with your help, it's been solved now.

Thank you, Voic3d. Thank you very, very much!

So explain why Greenland had farms 1000 years ago. Was it due to all the parking lots in medieval Europe?

It still has farms... Dude, that denialist talking point got debunked YEARS ago.

here and there - it was slightly warmer in the Medieval period, yes, but we will surpass that soon. But why do you think that is relevant to the question of whether humans can affect the climate?

There are still many people living in Greenland. It has it's own autonomous government though is is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. That makes it like Scotland is to the UK. Greenland has never been a place where crops grew without a struggle and the weather there can be difficult all year long but especially during the winter months. The Norse who settled there abandoned their farms because it wasn't worth it to them to stay.

That being said, for all the unpleasant arctic conditions, it is getting warmer there and the ice cap is melting away faster and faster every year. Maybe in a hundred years you will need to go to the arctic to farm. We shall see. Well, our grand kids will anyway.

Of course it is also interesting that now during the summer months it is possible to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific via the Northwest Passage when that has never before been the case during human history.

Human history spanning what 6,000 years geoligically that is blink.

Mr Ed, please go back to the stall and eat your oats.

Ed, this is far too fast to be a natural cycle. Open a science book or something.

Its funny how the deniers always invoke the name of Al Gore when they want to scoff at climate science. Guess what? I don't agree with Gore at all as far as how to deal with the situation. I don't think cap and trade is a good idea.

I think there should just be cap and no trade. I don't think they should reduce controlling carbon emissions to accounting. Companies will find a way around it. So if it came down to my plan or Gore's, you would rather have his.

People forget that sound ecological practices doesn't have to have a negative impact on the economy. In fact it could create a whole new industry to support the practices. Those giant petrol guzzling SUVs will be history soon enough anyway, you might as well get used to the fact.

Toasty:

Asking a bit much there aren't you? That's two things they don't understand. 1. Science. 2. Books.

"It's a cycle people, it happens. Guess what? It'll happen again! And get this, it'll get colder and thicker again too! It's been happening since time began and will continue until time ends, or until Al Gore says otherwise lol."

You write as if these cycles are unalterable by human activity. Are they unalterable? And are we in fact altering them?

That's the question.

And even if this is something that would have happened 'anyway,' even if it's not human-generated, it still appears to be going in an alarming direction. We still have to respond to its effects in some manner. 'We didn't cause it.' even if true, is of no benefit in the places sea level change will impact first, or agriculture as presently practiced becomes difficult or impossible. We can't just freely migrate to someplace more livable, as might have been done 10,000 years ago.

Oh, and if nothing else, changes in the Sun's output will render it all moot in less than a billion years, which may be virtually forever to you and me, but nevertheless long before 'time ends.'

when will you guys learn that the earth goes through hot and cold cycle?!?!

we know that the sun has its 13 year cycle that is peaking at its 11th/12th year of solar flare activity, (doesn't that send more heat out?) quit falling into the "global warming" scare.

yes humans are ruining the earth but not because of the things we operate and greenhouse gases, it's because of deforestation, over hunting/fishing, destroying habitats. also there was this thing i learned about recently that the earths magnetic field flip flops throughout time and is apparently over due, maybe this is happening now and causing more of the sun's heat and uv rays to heat our little planet up?

Might want to check just exactly where we are in that cycle, V.

BTW, solar cycles do not explain why the planet is continuously warming now. By definition, a solar cycle would fluctuate above and below a central line - unless the sun is getting hotter.

(It isn't.)

Wear shoes! It is like, amazingly stupid there in Colorado.

"Obviously these scientist aren't very smart if they don't think natural changes occur to the earth"

No scientist ever said that. EVER. I guarantee you the climate scientists are smarter than you.

Global warming denier's logic: I'm cold right now. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

Yep, next to these people, those climatologists aren't so smart, after all <end snark>.

You are correct to say that the earth has experienced cycles of cooling and warming. However, the normal cooling and warming cycles happen over thousands of years, not over decades. Only an imbecile would think that dumping over 90 million tons of CO2 each year, over and above the natural occurrence, would not have an effect on the atmosphere.

Lammy, we are all perfectly capable of understanding and adapting to natural cycles. This is NOT a natural cycle. You right wing science-hating cretins will not be satisfied until you manage to destroy the environment and eliminate most wildlife.

Well, let's let all the humans die and save the wildlife...then, we can start evolution all over again and see if Darwin was right....Someone save your cell phone and computer so pictures can be taken to prove Darwin right or wrong.

Oh, and get busy teaching some of the wildlife to work the phone and computer.

I am not sure I understand what the denial is all about. I keep getting a sense that some people are thinking that it is some sort of left wing conspiracy to, well to- uh, what? What advantage is it to anyone to manufacture an imaginary ecological disaster? Global warming has been a topic of concern not since the 1990s or the 1970s. Not even the 1950s but since the 1890s when it was theorised by a scientist named Svente Arrhenius. There may have been an article in a popular magazine in the 70s about the possibility of global cooling, but the concensus of climate scientists have been the stance of global warming since the 50s.

The main concerns are not rising oceans. People can move away long before their homes are flooded. The real concerns are things like lingering droughts ( Texas, anyone?) desalinization of the sea. Warming oceans, more intense weather. Food shortages, etc.

I am not sure I understand what the denial is all about. I keep getting a sense that some people are thinking that it is some sort of left wing conspiracy to, well to- uh, what?

Hal,

It took me a long time to understand that, too.

It ranges from 'gas will cost more' to 'cap and trade will raise all energy prices' to 'this is a plan to redistribute the world's wealth (by giving money to poor countries to help them develop green technologies)' to a 'global banking conspiracy and a New World Order'.

I swear I'm not making that last one up:

Conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control in order to more easily monitor and control the movement of individuals.^[5] The means range from stopping the growth of human societies through reproductive health and family planning programs, which promote abstinence, contraception and abortion, or intentionally reducing the bulk of the world population through genocides by mongering unnecessary wars, through plagues by engineering emergent viruses and tainting vaccines, and through environmental disasters by controlling the weather (HAARP, chemtrails), etc.

Conspiracy theorists argue that globalists plotting on behalf of a New World Order are neo-Malthusians who engage in overpopulation and climate change alarmism in order to create public support for coercive population control and ultimately world government.

I've actually seen that New World Order idea argued vigorously on the Vine - especially in reference to climate change. HAARP and other methods used to 'control the weather and create the appearance of climate change' also appear regularly.

If you post something about climate change, and another Viner calls you a communist, socialist, etc., now you'll know why.

I'm frequently alarmed by what people post as "obvious" truth, as if anyone not believing the quoted material in physicist's post are brainwashed hippies. These are the moon landing deniers, the conspiracy theorists (the CIA engineered 9/11 and shot JFK), the tin foil hat people. Their latest target is climate change, but there's always something keeping them down. "The man" is alive and well and manipulating their lives.

And Antarctica average temperatures are flat or dropping slightly, and there are no significant trends in snowfall, up or down.

That's not factual.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

and

ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain, glacial run-off and snowfall. This changes the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea ice (Zhang 2007).

All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Yes, there was global warming before. So? You act like that proves that humans can't affect it ALSO. LOL.

Uh, super? Do you have any idea how long it takes the climate to change this much naturally?

A little confused about descendants vs ancestors? Your inability to think clearly is in a close race with your ignorance.

Yeah what's up with that? Putting things in their proper order, wouldn't we all be descendants of somebody from the Ice Age? Then again maybe Al Gore is older than we were led to believe. Another conspiracy theory? Al Gore is 10,000 plus years old. Just ask his descendants from the Ice Age.

No, that would make it colder!

Huh?

So your logic is who cares? Can I come over to your house and take a **** on your carpet? I mean who cares right?

Only those who have gone to COLLEGE would understand.

There people must learn nothing in cllege.

:)

Last time I went to cllege was... well never. What the heck is cllege?

And just who are 'There people'? Are they different than 'Here people'?

Bust out those doobies everybody! cllege life is great! :{-

I don't know why you'd say that, where else would you be able to post your crap replies then? :)

lol... cool story bro. what a moron. you should never breed nor vote.

You realize there are still plenty of places you can go right now that are far from civilization, and except for the occasional jet contrail, you can barely tell other humans exist.

But remember, that also means no corner grocery stores, hospitals, utilities, and internet connections. People lost in the wilderness, by definition, experience those conditions. But in your case, no answer to your 911 cellphone call, no search teams, no Coast Guard looking for you, when you break that leg. Starvation and exposure are not good ways to die. Be careful what you wish for....