Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 16

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  invest07

  May 1, 2007, 8:38 a.m.

  Let me see if I have this straight.

  The most sophisticated computer models predict a ceratin rate of thaw but this study says they are wrong?

  So which study is right?

  Which one is credible and worthy of belief?

  Maybe, just maybe, none of these "sky is falling" studies are correct.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  RASSRASS

  May 1, 2007, 8:55 a.m.

  This means the arctic could be ice-free as early as 2020. This explains countries' rush to claim rights in the arctic. What there really should be is a rush to look at adaptations for our future environment. It's a good thing I am used to living with limited resources. All I need to be totally self reliant are some solar panels on my roof.

  TALK LESS, THINK MORE, DO MORE TO SAVE OURSELVES!
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  OnlyTheTruth

  May 1, 2007, 10:37 a.m.

  And the Great Experiment continues ...
• 
  Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)

  Hobe

  May 1, 2007, 10:53 a.m.

  'Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted'

  Not to Worry, this is one of Mother Earths normal Cycles...

  When Mother Earth gets Fed Up with mans BS, she will make a

  Major Correction, That's the time to be concerned...

  A little look back in History, will prove this out...

  Tobacco Al Gore and Jimmy the nut Carter making lots off there BS!!

  Sincerely,
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  joeblowe

  May 1, 2007, 11:33 a.m.

  Yeah, OK, but when will the ANTARCTIC ice melt? That's more useful since there is actual LAND under there. And yes, it's a valid point, if the ice is melting faster than (or slower for that matter) the computer models suggest, then it is OBVIOUS that the model is incorrect in some way. If it weren't, the model would match reality. Or, perhaps this is a case of GIGO. Which shouldn't be too surprising when trying to use satellite measurements that are only accurate to 1 meter to measure a couple inches of variation. Usually, we like to use a measuring device that provides a FINER reading than our minimum measurement.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  OnlyTheTruth

  May 1, 2007, 11:49 a.m.

  Large chunks of Antarctic ice is also melting.

  I have said all along that the projections have been too CONSERVATIVE. Looks like I am being proved right.

  It is not at all surprising that the models will need concstant fine-tuning. The important thing is that their projections have been in the right direction; just a bit over-optimistic. I wonder how much of that results from political tampering with the science trying to minimize the concerns.

  If you read the scientific literature you would know that they acknowledge the lack of hard PRECISION; that is different than any questions about the ACCURACY of the models.
• 
  Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)

  Mowens1984

  May 1, 2007, 12:28 p.m.

  What!? Computers can't predict the future!? This is intolerable. (end sarcasm)
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  joeblowe

  May 1, 2007, 1:11 p.m.

  Yes, but due to the reduced gravity, they don't need anything bigger than a 6 cylinder. AND, they are cooperating by paying Big Al for carbon credits. Which is why he isn't saying much about them.

The first 15 comments are shown. Show all 16 comments »