And while the formation of lakes at the pole has happened before - there is no denying that the Actic icecap is decreasing rapidly:

During the first two weeks of July, ice extent declined at a rate of 132,000 square kilometers (51,000 square miles) per day. This was 61% faster than the average rate of decline over the period 1981 to 2010 of 82,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) per day.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The earth has been warming for the past 15 years.  Despite what a columnist in the Daily Mail may have written.

Or we could go with the actual scientific opinion:

"Though the North Pole lake’s 15 minutes of fame focused worldwide attention on global warming’s effects on Arctic sea ice, the melting is actually part of an annual summer thaw, according to researchers who run the North Pole Environmental Observatory. “The formation of these ponds and their disappearance is part of a natural cycle,” said Axel Schweiger, head of the Applied Physics Laboratory’s Polar Science Center at the University of Washington, which helps run the observatory.

The lake, about the size of an Olympic swimming pool, started forming in mid-July, LiveScience first reported on July 23.

The size and timing of the lake are typical for this time of year and location, the researchers said."

oops, forgot this bit:

"When the meltwater lake appeared in mid-July, the buoys were about 375 miles (600 kilometers) south of the geographic North Pole. Their journey from April to July put the buoys on parallel to the magnetic North Pole, which is currently west of Greenland."

Quote:


That close?  The fact remains that methane is bubbling off from melting arctic lakes and permafrost at an increasing rate of about 2% per year.

Quote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC086iC10p09826/abstract;jsessionid=D...

We're doomed.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:


Well the portion up to 2013 is actual data, so it includes natural variation. However the projection does ignore natural variation.

It demonstrates just how minor the natural temperature variations are over an approximate 200 year timescale in comparison to the projected increase due to the emission of Greenhouse Gases. Obviously if there was a major stratospheric eruption such as a super volcano,  that would change everything, but we haven't had one of those for about 70 000 years.

It also ignores one or two feedbacks that are a consequence of increased emission of greenhouse gases, so it's potentially understated. 

I'll tell you what, I'll superimpose the natural variation of the past on the projected figures to show how much effect it would have. Here I've used 10 year running means. The graph is indicative only. 

In other words, if the natural variation of the last century is indicative of the natural variation between now and 2100, it would look something like this: 

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:


that may prove difficult, I've heard its blocked with fraudulent and failed climate science papers....

muso wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

Gottim!