Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
environment

Arctic could be ice-free a decade earlier than thought

40 Comments
By Marlowe HOOD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2023 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


40 Comments
Login to comment

More fear mongering based on ridiculous worst case scenario than the actual facts. What is wrong with these people?

-2 ( +14 / -16 )

You may not believe in climate change but climate change believes in you!

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Check out https://extinctionclock.org/ to see how these predictions always work out.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Some only see the negative side and spread panic. Of course, an ice free Arctic is then still not an extremely hot tropical area, and also please don’t ignore, that a big part of global transportation becomes much shorter in distance then, so that in general less fossils are used and less CO2 or other pollutants occur. If wisely used, the less or completely missing ice , although sounding dramatic, will be a very big contribution to solving a few of your other topics regarding your climate change or reaching some numerical goals for less resource usage and temperature limits faster. Well, I know, the intonation is on wisely, so it’s maybe quite improbable. But first let’s see.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

More fear mongering based on ridiculous worst case scenario than the actual facts. What is wrong with these people?

What is wrong is to dimiss valid scientific conclusions based on validated methods just because you think you must be right and the professionals wrong.

The report do not depend on worst case scenarios, it clearly assumes the Paris climate treate as successful (something not likely to happen). The changes in projections depend on new discoveries that modify the models.

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to refute the report? if not that means it is valid and correct until something different is proved with better evidence. No fear mongering but useful information. The only ones feeling fear would be people with deep antiscientific bias that feel threatened by knowledge.

Check out https://extinctionclock.org/ to see how these predictions always work out.

Terribly bad reference that gives the same importance to anything said by anybody, even if it contradicts the scientific consensus, and that misrepresent predictions avoided thanks to huge global efforts as if they were wrong from the beginning.

e less or completely missing ice , although sounding dramatic, will be a very big contribution to solving a few of your other topics regarding your climate change

Since that depends completely on ignoring the huge negative consequences of clmate change and elevation of the sea levels that is like saying that losing a hand is not so bad considering all the time you will save cutting your nails.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

You may not believe in climate change but climate change believes in you!

I think almost everyone believes that climate changes. But many do not believe that humans are the main cause (despite the cherry-picked "scientific consensus"), or that the proposed response will help significantly, or that the people proposing them are driven by a genuine desire to prevent or slow down "climate change".

0 ( +12 / -12 )

I think almost everyone believes that climate changes. But many do not believe that humans are the main cause (despite the cherry-picked "scientific consensus"), or that the proposed response will help significantly, or that the people proposing them are driven by a genuine desire to prevent or slow down "climate change".

Well isn't that convenient that you accept that it is happening but that there is nothing you can do about it? Technology may be powerless on a lot of things but stopping making it worse is always an answer. Science was even right about the ozone hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

 But many do not believe that humans are the main cause (despite the cherry-picked "scientific consensus")

That would only apply If you consider every single recognized institution of science of the globe "cherry picked" that is not what the word mean. The human activity as a cause of climate change has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and there is a scientific consensus about it, there are even studies that prove the scientific community is in consensus about the consensus on climate change.

or that the proposed response will help significantly, or that the people proposing them are driven by a genuine desire to prevent or slow down "climate change".

The most effective method for ameliorating the damage is not something everybody agrees on, and there is a lot of discussion about balancing between practical considerations and the urgency, costs-benefits or how to efficiently get people to participate in the efforts, that does nothing to disprove that measures are absolutely necessary and that doing nothing will only increase the damage.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

 But many do not believe that humans are the main cause (despite the cherry-picked "scientific consensus")

That would only apply If you consider every single recognized institution of science of the globe "cherry picked" that is not what the word mean.

Those "recognized institution of science" are picking the cherries that satisfy their agenda, and discarding those that don't.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Those "recognized institution of science" are picking the cherries that satisfy their agenda, and discarding those that don't.

Again, when your argument depend on disqualifying ALL the scientific institutions of the world as part of a global conspiracy while you are completely unable to refute the evidence that allows the conclusions you don't like you are just recognizing you don't have an argument, so you have to use impossible scenarios that are not believable.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

LOL. You're either completely oblivious to the corruption of science that answers to the wishes of its funding sources, or deliberately obfuscating. I hope it's A, but your track record suggests B.

So instead of proving your accusations about the whole scientific community you think just pretending they are true would be valid? that is the opposite of an argument, you are implicitly recognizing you have no argument.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

An ice-free September in the 2030s "is a decade faster than in recent projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)", the UN's science advisory body, said Min.

In its landmark 2021 report, the IPCC forecast with "high confidence" that the Arctic Ocean would become virtually ice-free at least once by mid-century, and even then only under more extreme greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.*

The new study -- which draws from observational data covering the period 1979-2019 to adjust the IPCC models -- finds that threshold will most likely be crossed in the 2040s.*

Lol.

So this study is more reliable than the ipcc consensus?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

So this study is more reliable than the ipcc consensus?

That what is expected, new information helps making better predictions it says so in the text you quoted, additional data allows for adjustment of the models to make them more precise. This report follows the same methodology as the previous models did, so it would be as reliable as them.

Also the what the IPCC published is a report, not a consensus. A consensus comes when many different sources all agree on the same conclusion, not when one single source agrees with itself.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Arctic could be ice-free a decade earlier than thought

"Could".

Or could not.

According to the experts.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

According to the "scientists", ice-free doesn't actually mean ice-free.

More AGW propaganda.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

The Arctic Ocean's ice cap will disappear in summer as soon as the 2030s 

Lots of guesswork there,

2030?

2031?

2037?

Who knows!?!?!?

The experts!

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Could".

Or could not.

According to the experts.

According to the report this is a very clear conclusion, depending on unknown factors this could change, but realistically speaking there is not much chance for it.

According to the "scientists", ice-free doesn't actually mean ice-free.

More AGW propaganda.

Any evidence to refute these scientific findings? obviously making an appeal to your own supposed authority is not an argument, so you would still need evidence.

Lots of guesswork there,

No, not really, what part of the assumptions, evidence and methods can you disprove? they are following a well validated method to reach their conclusions, misrepresenting this as "guesswork" is not a valid criticism, specially without any evidence to support this claim.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

lmao we’re all going to die so that billionaire oil barons can have a bit more money

0 ( +6 / -6 )

virusrex

Today 01:48 pm JST

So this study is more reliable than the ipcc consensus?

> That what is expected, new information helps making better predictions it says so in the text you quoted, additional data allows for adjustment of the models to make them more precise. This report follows the same methodology as the previous models did, so it would be as reliable as them.

It used 2019 and older data

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Also the what the IPCC published is a report, not a consensus. A consensus comes when many different sources all agree on the same conclusion, not when one single source agrees with itself.

The so called consensus statement is from ipcc, no?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Does this all mean that the predicted climate catastrophe will be coming earlier?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Really hilarious how some people believe each new prediction that comes along.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Anything that came true yet?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

It used 2019 and older data

It still means it is incorporating more data to what the original report included, thus improving it.

The so called consensus statement is from ipcc, no?

Where did the IPCC called their report the consensus? your understanding is still mistaken, consensus is what happens when everybody agrees on something being correct (like the IPCC report). The source of information do not form a consensus by itself but instead this is reached according to the opinion of the scientific community of the field in general.

Does this all mean that the predicted climate catastrophe will be coming earlier?

The article clearly explains that this specific climatic cathastophe will come sooner than predicted according to new information included in the analysis.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Where did the IPCC called their report the consensus? your understanding is still mistaken, consensus is what happens when everybody agrees on something being correct (like the IPCC report). The source of information do not form a consensus by itself but instead this is reached according to the opinion of the scientific community of the field in general.

Lol

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It used 2019 and older data

> It still means it is incorporating more data to what the original report included, thus improving it.

Hahahaha

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Really hilarious how some people believe each new prediction that comes along.

No belief is necessary, validated data and methods are there for anybody to examine and confirm, thus giving the report scientific weight.

Anything that came true yet?

The observed changes have been well correlated with what has been predicted in the reports.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

it seems that predictions about the consequences of global warming keeping being wrong; not because they fail to predict what will happen, but because they fail to predict how quickly things will happen.

From what I am seeing, there is no way that we will manage to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees C. As a consequence, large parts of the Earth will become unlivable for our species. Being able to navigate through the Arctic Ocean is not a good trade-off for having much of the Earth uninhabitable.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In the next century, people will look upon these days as the Age of Stupidity.

An age of scientifically ignorant buffoons politicizing and denying any action that could have reduced the effects of climate change. Some action is better than no action.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Read old articles. This has been predicted for decades, and each prediction has been wrong.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Read old articles. This has been predicted for decades, and each prediction has been wrong.

Except for the fact they have not, current trends correlate very closely with what the models predict, and the serious consequences have already begun to be noticed. Cherry picking things not said by scientists or taken out of context to "prove" everything has been wrong no longer fools anyone.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The Arctic Ocean's ice cap will disappear in summer as soon as the 2030s 

Lots of guesswork there,

2030?

2031?

2037? 

Who knows!?!?!?

The experts!

Right on the money.

Except for the fact they have not, current trends correlate very closely with what the models predict, and the serious consequences have already begun to be noticed. Cherry picking things not said by scientists or taken out of context to "prove" everything has been wrong no longer fools anyone.

Complete hearsay.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

In the next century, people will look upon these days as the Age of Stupidity.

An age of scientifically ignorant buffoons believing in scientifically unsupported politicized narratives pushed by unscrupulous people for a buck.

Some action is better than no action.

Not always; e.g. throwing gasoline on a fire....

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Complete hearsay

You calling hearsay anything you don't want to accept do not make it so, what unverifiable source is mentioned in your quote? none? that means it is not hearsay, just an argument you declined to address and therefore implicitly accepted as valid and correct.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

More fear mongering based on ridiculous worst case scenario than the actual facts. What is wrong with these people?

True and true.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I’ll never forget one conspiracy theorist ( stolen elections, climate change a hoax, scamdemic, Building 7, etc. ) comparing what these sheep do to Galileo.

Galileo…

One of the greatest intellects in human history and these morons think he’d be watching Infowars if he were around today.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

True and true.

Without any actual evidence that contradicts the findings of the report that wold still be false and false.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

More fear mongering based on ridiculous worst case scenario than the actual facts. What is wrong with these people?

Well said, and valid on all sides.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I'm sure you will just open another one. One, two, three.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well said, and valid on all sides.

Except of course that the claim is completely invalid as demonstrated by the lack of capacity to rebuke the scientific report, it is at much an irrational belief contradicted by scientific findings.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites