Slightly off topic, but in keeping with the satellite pic I posted on Beijing's smog - get a load of this story:

http://www.care2.com/causes/chinas-smog-so-bad-a-huge-fire-burns-unnoticed-for-3-hours.html

The atmosphere over the Arctic has hit a troublesome milestone: the concentration of CO2 has surpassed 400 parts per million. Stations across the region in Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Iceland have recorded the measurements that have surged since the winter and spring have brought a decline in CO2-absorbing vegetation. While the downswing in carbon absorption happens every year, this is the first time in 800,000 years that the CO2 concentration anywhere in the world has been 400 ppm or above.
Before industrialization, global CO2 levels were about 280 ppm but in recent years global levels have reached as high as 395 ppm. The fact that any area of the globe has climbed above the 400 ppm mark concerns climate scientists that even with many countries rolling out carbon reduction measures, it's not making a difference fast enough.
Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said, “It is an indication that we’re in a different world.”
To that end, scientists have recently discovered that the loss of Arctic summer ice and accelerated warming of that region are altering the jet stream, which is likely to increase extreme weather events around the world.

On the Murdoch press "misinterpretation" on sea-level rise:

http://www.readfearn.com/2013/01/the-australian-admits-it-misinterpreted-research-on-sea-level-rise-linked-to-climate-change/

Whether the seas are rising or not it makes good sense to develop renewable sources of energy. It also makes good sense to clean-up the environment. And if the case was framed around that there might be more support.

Another thing which works against consensus is the gimmicky and harebrained nature of “climate change initiatives”, like:

1) Hyping the need for “urgent”action. Then introducing incentives for people to adopt solar, only to withdraw /wind them back when they get too popular. Or signing-up to protocols like Kyoto which allow many of the worst polluters exemptions and the worst overpopulators to freeride, and

2) Arguing that short term trends mean little, when they don’t go to support the AGW line. But then, milking short-termism to the max.by choosing to release the latest Climate Committee report in the middle of Australian summer with the predictable result that every Steele, Poirot and Wobbles will shout “Wow! This hot weather conclusively proves AGW” and then link us to some childish cartoon, that only a devotee would find any humour in.

Qanda made an interesting point the other day about the need to sideline the extremists from both sides of the debate.And he went on to name Lord Monckton and Tim Flannery as two such unhelpful parties.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14511#251373

Now I’m not sure about these two, but I can’t help but feel that if Qanda had not been constrained by the OLOs 350 word limit he might well have gone on add CSteele, Poirot, Wobbles, 579…to the (name and shame) list of unhelpful participants.Though to be fair, he would have been likely to have slotted them in well ahead of either Flannerly or Monckton!

____________________________________________________________________

@ David Leigh
<< It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush>>

WOW!

How many of these have you had: << Just throw another shrimp on the barbie and get me another beer>>

<< It took just 48 hours to turn ice, KILOMETRES THICK into mush>>

Can you give us the link to this?

SPQR,

Here's yer link.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

You know very well that "short-term" trends are ,merely that,"short-term" trends. They don't conclusively prove anything - yet they all go to make up "long-term" trends

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

Just want to add for SPQR's benefit that the term "thick mush" was probably overstating the scenario...yet it can't denied that it was significant melt in very quick time - an "extreme melt event".