Re: [CC] Global temperatures: Last month was second-warmest August on record.

[Spike]

Apologies, it was Iceland not Greenland:

Not from that article - the BBC coyly forgot to mention it.

Fascinating.

In your BBC article, the glacier in question is moving too fast.

In my BBC article, the glacier in question is moving too slowly.

Perhaps you, or the BBC, or someone, can say what the correct speed of glacier movement is?

Kindly note that when ice ages end, glaciers melt and sea levels rise. It's not 'news'.

[Spike]

So the speed of movement of glaciers is highly variable (by a factor of

any one glacier is in itself meaningless - but the BBC, that doyen of balance in this matter, mentions them without context anyway, for reasons best known to themselves, although perception management may have something to do with it. Therefore, unless context is supplied, they can be dismissed as puffery.

The LIA is something of a variable feast and almost certainly was not limited to Western Europe. This from Wikipedia, which commences by quoting from the IPCC's Third and Fourth reports:

=====

There is no consensus regarding the time when the Little Ice Age began, but a series of events before the known climatic minima has often been referenced. In the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. Anecdotal evidence suggests expanding glaciers almost worldwide.

===== and =====

Therefore, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:

1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow; cold period possibly triggered or enhanced by the massive eruption of Samalas volcano in 1257[17] 1275 to 1300 based on the radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315?1317 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion 1650 for the first climatic minimum.

The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.

[note that this data is from referenced works] =====

I'm very sorry, but an article that starts with "Greenland's massive ice sheet may have melted by a record amount..." is hardly an authoritative statement on which to base anything at all. It equally 'may not' have done so but such a biassed article would never say so. Further, given the >20000:1 rate of glacier speeds, the mention of 'acceleration' without context is also either misleading or irrelevant.

It would appear that you are wrong in your restricted view of the LIA both in terms of timing and extent.

You only 'do that' if you believe in it rather than taking a broad view of all the science and not just the BBC's highly partial view of it, and are willing to condemn a highly restricted population to living in the Middle Ages after spending fabulous wealth chasing a belief. When Ice Ages end, as the last one is still doing, glaciers melt and seal levels rise.

Regarding the BBC's one-sided, not-impartial view of the topic:

====

....the BBC has spent six years trying to conceal. The story goes back to a seminar, held in January 2006, where the BBC (to quote one of its own reports) gathered ?the best scientific experts? who concluded that ?the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus? on anthropogenic climate change.

.....

Little has changed since. In 2011 the BBC published a defiant apologia ? written by angry snails-expert-cum-climate-alarmist Professor Steve Jones ? arguing that the BBC?s bias on climate change was more than justified by the science.

.....

The BBC very much didn?t want him [North Wales pensioner and blogger (?Harmless Sky?) Tony Newbery] to find out. For a week this month, it has been spending perhaps £40,000 a day on a crack team of lawyers trying to persuade ? successfully as it turned out ? an information tribunal that this should remain confidential. Sadly for the BBC, another enterprising blogger called Maurizio Morabito unearthed the details anyway and published them on Monday via the website Watts Up With That?

So who were all these ?best scientific experts? who did so much to shape the BBC?s climate policy (and by extension, one fears, government policy too?)? Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation? Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ?climate change?. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ?best scientific? expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.

=====

Full article at