# 2013 sea ice thread!!!



## ScienceRocks (May 4, 2013)

All discussion of Arctic sea ice!!! Let's watch the min!!!

So far we're tracking even below last year! 

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 4, 2013)

> According to the model data 2013 has peaked at a total volume of 21,823 km3 on April 17th, which is 100 km3 below last year's record. Since then, 2013 volume has dipped quite a bit below last year's number (295 km3 to be precise), but is still close to 2011 which has only 63 km3 more at this moment.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 4, 2013)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Look how wide the max to mins are now...Twice of what they were in the 80's to 1995.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 5, 2013)

holy shit!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2013)

Matthew said:


> holy shit!



Consider, it takes a lot of heat to melt ice. 334 J/g to be specific. It takes 4.81 J/g to heat water 1 degree C. So when the Arctic ocean was mostly covered by ice for the whole summer, even though the top of that ice was melting, it was absorbing a lot of energy to melt. Not only that, it was also reflecting about 90% of the energy of the sunlight back into space.

Now, there is more open water than ice for part of the summer. So that ice that normally was absorbing 334 J of energy per gram to melt is not there. And the water, when it absorbs that 334 J that would have melted ice, no temperature change, now warms over 67 g of water 1 degree with that 334 J of energy. Not only that, but instead of reflecting 90% of the sunlights energy back into space, it absorbs 90% of that energy. Now that is one honking feedback loop.


----------



## mamooth (May 5, 2013)

Some things to bookmark. First, a higher resolution ice extent map, using data from the recently launched Japanese GCOM-W1 satellite, can be found here:

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/index.html








Also useful is the US Navy's ice motion map, which shows which way and how fast the ice is drifting. You can see how winds are currently pushing ice out the Fram Strait (east of Greenland).

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrfnowcast.gif







Finally, the thickness map, also from the dirty socialists at the US Navy.

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 7, 2013)

We're slightly below last year but 2011 is slightly lower at this time....So I'm going to say that we're going to be within the top 3 this year.

This really depends how the weather pattern sets up during the melt season; July-Sept.

This is last years thickness


----------



## RollingThunder (May 8, 2013)

Ice is melting all around the planet due to global warming and its associated climate changes, and the greatest loss of ice so far has occurred in the Arctic.

It can be hard to get a clear mental picture of just how great the loss of Arctic sea ice has been, but this video does a pretty good job of illustrating the magnitude of that loss.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YgiMBxaL19M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YgiMBxaL19M[/ame]


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 10, 2013)




----------



## ScienceRocks (May 10, 2013)

We're below 2012 through mid April based on thickness. We're slightly below 2012 based on extent too.

I've modeled the maximum since 1980 for thickness. Is it growing earlier in the season??? Like a full month. wow.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2013)

Excellent documentary about tracking glacier melting -

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hi4AN9uSH...s1600/gop-libya-cuts-for-embassy-security.jpg


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Excellent documentary about tracking glacier melting -
> 
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hi4AN9uSH...s1600/gop-libya-cuts-for-embassy-security.jpg





That doesn't lead to a documentary about glaciers.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent documentary about tracking glacier melting -
> ...



Sorry bout that. I clicked to post and then went to feed the dog and cats without looking at it. Here's the real link --

Chasing Ice

More info -

Chasing Ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fantastic Film 'Chasing Ice' to Run on National Geographic TV | Wired Science | Wired.com

Chasing Ice | National Geographic Channel






If you have an opportunity to see this, its well worth the time.


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2013)

Slow start to the 2013 melt season, due to the last two weeks being cool around Greenland and the Canadian Arctic. That's kept the ice in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay more or less intact, pushing the area totals up. However, since Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay always melt out completely, it's not going to matter in the long run.

There was a moderate cyclone right on top of the north pole 4 days ago, which you can still see on the Navy wind speed map, as they haven't updated their maps for 4 days. Not sure why.

The more interesting thing for the long term is the above-average temps on the Russian side, leaving the ice on that side of the Arctic basin full of cracks (the lighter purple).


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2013)

28, May, 2013............

Country Hunkers Down As Cold Snap Bites | Stuff.co.nz


The climate crusaders should speak to these people!!!! They'd laugh their balls off!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 28, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> 28, May, 2013............
> 
> Country Hunkers Down As Cold Snap Bites | Stuff.co.nz
> 
> ...



You're clueless of the scope of reality you'd need for you to understand at all.  A weather pattern(blocking ridges, lows, etc) are causing that cold and a piss poor melting season in the arctic.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > 28, May, 2013............
> ...





All I need to understand s0n.........


Controversial Study Probes Reasons for Climate Bill Failure - BuildingGreen.com



Outside the world of the bubble dwellars exists a world where reality is 95% perception.......and when people are freezing their asses off all over the country when its almost summer, THATS the only important scope of reality!!!


Far left guys just cant connect the dots on that........what can I say?



But go.....go.....go on all the sea ice debate!!!!! Knock yourself out s0n!!!


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2013)




----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2013)

A medium sized cyclone over the north pole now. That's flinging ice south out the Fram Strait and towards Russia, which is having a warm spell now. 






It's also cracking the central ice pack. In the Arctic, there's colder water on top and warmer water below, and such storms draw up the warmer water and cause melting. I haven't seen a map like this before, with the lighter colors in the central ice pack so early in the season. Long term forecasts are for the storm to die down, then several days of warm temps and strong sunlight on the Russian side, then another cyclone.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2013)

The Russians move to evacuate their North Pole station as the ice under it cracks. That station was supposed to last until September. Right now, the station has drifted closer to Canada, but the Russians are still handling it, using a big icebreaker that carries helos. If it gets really serious, they'll ask Canada for an assist.

Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers | Arctic.ru

The June 5 forecast for Churchill on Hudson Bay is 23C/73F, and the June 6 forecast is 27C/80F.

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada

That's going to put a dent in the Hudson Bay sea ice. Significantly above-average temperatures are forecast for the most of Canadian Arctic and Greenland. In addition to sea ice melting, the snowpack on land, already below average, will probably end up totally gone on the continent and majorly reduced on the islands, which sets the stage for more sunlight absorption. The general Arctic forecast is sunny for a few days, then a new cyclone forms around June 10.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 9, 2013)

The main attraction now is the cyclone-that-won't-go-away. It faded, but came roaring back, and is forecast to keep going another week.







That's making for an interesting ice pattern. Fragmented in the middle, but more solid at the margins. It remains to be seen how that will play out in the long term, as we haven't seen this before. In other areas, the warm temperatures over Hudson Bay Baffin Bay start the breakup there, which was delayed due to a cold May in those areas.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The Russians move to evacuate their North Pole station as the ice under it cracks. That station was supposed to last until September. Right now, the station has drifted closer to Canada, but the Russians are still handling it, using a big icebreaker that carries helos. If it gets really serious, they'll ask Canada for an assist.
> 
> Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers | Arctic.ru
> 
> ...



Your lying is a bad habit now admiral... Your first link...

Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers | Arctic.ru



> *Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers*
> 
> in RIA Novosti
> May 31, 2013
> ...



Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did.  Not surprising considering it came from a known liar....

Your second link...

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada



> *Churchill, MB
> *
> 
> Current Conditions
> ...



And again we see you lying about your links material.. Seems the temps there are not especially warmer or colder. So were you outright lying or just going by a weather forecast and trying to pretend it's a fact?

LOL, well either way we see very clearly the record high and low was from 2012, 21.2 C and -0.6C respectively and since the 6th has come and gone and the records from 2012 still stand we can safely say the forecast was bogus..


----------



## Wroberson (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm sorry again...

You do realize that there are oils wells in the Arctic and instead of collecting it, they burn it.  The black soot falls and covers the ice.  The Sun hits the dark soot and heats it up causing the ice to melt.

This isn't in support of global warming by any means, but you can't sell an idea unless you can show that the idea is causing a problem.

I said that because yes, man is drilling and burning up there, but they need the land ice to melt so they can spread the fear of global warming and the alleged man made causes.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did.



My summary, as always, was entirely correct. Just because everything in it was not present in the one link does not make it "lies". Someone would have to be a complete imbecile to jump on that kind of retard logic train. But then, look who's talking.

People of normal intelligence would understand that I simply read more sources than the single link I posted, and that my summary included information from those sources. If such a simple concept escapes you, you're out of luck. I can't dumb it down any further. No surprise, as it's usually not possible to dumb down any topic to a level where you can understand it.



> Current Conditions
> 5 degrees Celsius



So SuperEinstein Gslack reads the current temperature of Churchill on Hudson Bay at shortly before 1:21AM (his posting time), compares it to the average daily high for the day, and declares it meant it wasn't warmer than average, like I said, and thus declares I'm a liar.

Yep, he really is that dumb. The thought that it might be colder at night simply never enters into his little brain. That's the level of zero-common-sense that one always encounters with when dealing with gslack. His consistently hilarious stupidity drives him to totally misinterpret everything, and then immediately scream "liar!" at everyone who gets it correct.

People of normal intelligence would be comparing the actual daily high to the historical average high. Looking at the 24-hour record, the high in Churchill on the afternoon of June 9 was ... 19C. That's well above the average high of 10C for that date, reinforcing my point that it's warm over Hudson Bay now.

Gslack, this should be where you show some class and apologize, as your own retardation and lingering butthurt drove you to incorrectly call me a liar. But you won't, since you're emotionally incapable of ever admitting any error, or of backing down from your obessive vendettas. Hence, you're going to double down on the stupid in some very amusing manner, and give everyone a good laugh. Please proceed with that.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did.
> ...



LOLOL...

So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called *LYING!!*!

The next thing you did was claim that people should be able to read your mind and know that when you post a link and make a claim regarding it, it doesn't mean the link is relevant to it??? MORON...ROFL..

And the best part where you said this little gem...

*"Looking at the 24-hour record, the high in Churchill on the afternoon of June 9 was ... 19C. That's well above the average high of 10C for that date, reinforcing my point that it's warm over Hudson Bay now."*

What in the hell does that actually say? Does it actually make a meaningful point? NO..The record HIGH is going to be higher ya moron. 

Don't like the time I posted? fine how about now...

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada



> Current Conditions
> 
> 6°C
> 
> ...



Seems to me it's not even close to the record, which is most likely based on less than 100 years.

Now again we see you being full of it...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2013)

gslack said:


> So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called LYING!!!



Ah, so anyone who states a fact not included in the next link is "lying!!!".

It's funny, these bizarre logical contortions you twist yourself into for the sake of your crank vendetta. Not to mention your obsession with playing "gotcha!" over minutia, and the way you keep doing a faceplant into a cowpatty when you try. You really seem to be into the self-humiliation.



> What in the hell does that actually say? Does it actually make a meaningful point? NO..The record HIGH is going to be higher ya moron.



You're the only one babbling about record highs. My point, as I kept stating directly (a habit of mine), is that it was warmer than average around Hudson Bay, which will rapidly melt the ice there. For example, the high temperature in Churchill on June 9 was 19C. The average high temperature for that date is 10C. 19 is greater than 10, hence, it was warmer than average. 

This isn't rocket science. You're just stupid. And in classic Dunning-Kruger fashion, you lack the intelligence to understand how stupid you are. You believe yourself to be incapable of error, so whenever someone points out one of your endless parade of stupid mistakes, your stupid brain concludes that person must be a "liar!!!". 



> Don't like the time I posted? fine how about now...



Even 1st graders understand what a daily high temperature is, but you don't. Even after it's patiently explained to you, you still keep failing at it, pointlessly comparing temperatures that are _not_ the daily high to the average daily high. 

Now, do you have an actual point to make, other than that the only expertise you possess is in creating pissing matches over nothing? I'm already getting bored with it, so try addressing an actual point if you want the discussion to continue.


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called LYING!!!
> ...



Anyone who claims something and provides a link as evidence to it, yet the link does not support the claim or even have anything to do with that false claim about it's contents is in fact a liar.... And that is you... You make a claim and provide a link, the link wasn't what you tried to claim it was ergo, you lied...

LOL, if the high for one day is higher than it's average, it just means it's high for that one day dumbass. One day is not a pattern, and the fact I showed that today it wasn't anything remotely like a warming trend. In fact it's showing no trend at all...

Daily Data | Canada's National Climate Archive



> Daily Data Report for June 2013
> 
> Notes on Data Quality.
> date  High  Low  mean
> ...



Notice the changes? Sure ya do dummy, they show a variation of temps falling and rising only to fall again.. Today it was an average of 6C compared to yesterdays 11.5C average. In fact if you look closely you see a change of ROUGHLY 15C between the 1st and 2nd, and further looking at the mean temps we see the same thing.. Weather isn't indicative of climate moron which you guys claim whenever it suits you.

The bottom line is you took a weather temp forecast and tried to make another bold claim using it, and the actual temp that came about was below your forecasts numbers. You got caught once again being ignorant and false..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 11, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> I'm sorry again...
> 
> You do realize that there are oils wells in the Arctic and instead of collecting it, they burn it.  The black soot falls and covers the ice.  The Sun hits the dark soot and heats it up causing the ice to melt.



Right. Of course. 

There is absolutely no question at all that Arctic ice is disappearing at a catastrophic rate. It's a clear, known, proven and observable scientific fact - as proven on this thread. 

Blaming that on oil wells is not a theory that is likely to convince anyone at all.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 11, 2013)

Sea ice extent in May 2013 averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles). *This is 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month.* As has been the case for the past several years, ice extent was below average in the Barents Sea on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

So, for our resident sceptics and deniars - WHY is this happening? 

Please be specific!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2013)

As Earth warms, Arctic is warming fastest | Earth | EarthSky


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2013)

It's caused by soot from India and China


----------



## mamooth (Jun 11, 2013)

Greenland ice sheet melt is certainly increased by soot, and there's at least one expedition forming to study that in detail.

But sea ice, no. Sea ice is too temporary for soot to build up on over the years. Much of the sea ice melts each year, sending the soot to the ocean bottom. What doesn't melt occasionally churns, washing off soot, or flips over on top of other thick ice, hiding the soot.


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry again...
> ...



Oh why don't you two, or rather you and the other you get a room? 

The only proven fact in this thread is that your pal outright lied about his first post, and tried to pass off a forecast as actual weather and then tried to call weather climate..


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Sea ice extent in May 2013 averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles). *This is 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month.* As has been the case for the past several years, ice extent was below average in the Barents Sea on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> ...



Since you and the other you don't like to actually quote a source directly, I will shed some much needed perspective light on it...

From your link...



> Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.



And 



> There are several open water areas, or polynyas, along the Arctic coast, *as is typical for this time of year.*



And...



> *May 2013 was the tenth lowest May in the satellite record*, *390,000 square kilometers (151,000 square miles) above the record low* of 12.81 million square kilometers (4.95 million square kilometers) in 2011.



And as if the good news never ends...



> *Through the month of May this year, extent declined at an average rate of 36,400 square kilometers (14,100 square miles) per day, slower than the 1979 to 2000 average of 44,100 square kilometers (17,000 square miles) per day.*



And as if that weren't enough, the fact still remains that it is weather not climate. And seasonal ice melting is normal weather..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2013)

Why yes, let us shed light on this issue. The Sea Ice anamoly, as seen from satellite, from 1979;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Note that prior to 1997, almost the anamoly was almost all above the zero line. Since that time, almost all below. Not only that, since 2004, it has touched the zero line only once.

In 1979, the sea ice minimum was 6.5 million square kilometers. Last year, about 2.25 square kilometers. And the majority of the melting has occured since 2000.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Why yes, let us shed light on this issue. The Sea Ice anamoly, as seen from satellite, from 1979;
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
> 
> ...



I don't care for out of context charts socks... I like context...

SOTC: Sea Ice



> Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3 to 4 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.
> 
> Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.



Well the underlined parts kind of tell the tale don't they.. The arctic has been declining 3 to 4 percent PER DECADE. And the Antarctic has been increasing, but they make sure they say the trend is small, and anything prior to satelite data is pretty much guess work. SO the comparisons to ice extent before that time is dubious at best.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2013)

context;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> context;
> 
> Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today



My link was from the NSIDC and yours was from the University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign...

LOL, I win..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2013)

Win what?

Yes, that is a good site;

SOTC: Sea Ice

Combined with record low summertime extent, Arctic sea ice exhibited a new pattern of poor winter recovery. In the past, a low-ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record (see Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues). Although wintertime recovery of Arctic sea ice improved somewhat after 2006, wintertime extents have remained below the long-term average.

A study published in 2007 found a dramatic change in the age of sea ice in the central Arctic Basin since the mid-1980s. In 1987, 57 percent of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and a quarter of that ice was at least 9 years old. By 2007, only 7 percent of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and virtually none of the ice was at least 9 years old (Maslanik et al, 2007).


The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached a new record low in 2012 of 3.41 million square kilometers, 49 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and 18 percent below the previous record in 2007. The last six years (2007-2012) have seen the six lowest minimum extents in the satellite record (since 1979). Over the last 11 years, a new record was set four times (2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012) and several other years saw near-record lows, particularly 2008 and 2011.

The spring and summer weather conditions play an important role in the minimum extent and the spatial distribution of ice at the end of summer, and help determine if a particular year will be a record low. For example, in 2007, persistent winds through the summer helped to contract the ice to a new minimum record. In 2012, conditions were less favorable to ice retreat through the summer, although a strong cyclone in early August helped break up the ice and enhance melt. Regardless of weather patterns, the Arctic September ice extent shows a consistent downward trend in extent and thickness over the satellite record. For more information visit Poles apart: A record-breaking summer and winter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2013)

SOTC: Sea Ice

Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a see-saw pattern of alternating atmospheric pressure at polar and mid-latitudes. The positive phase produces a strong polar vortex, with the mid-latitude jet stream shifted northward. The negative phase produces the opposite conditions. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between 1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid 1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace 2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic, but other factors also played a role.

Since the mid-1990s, the AO has largely been a neutral or negative phase, and the late 1990s and early 2000s brought a weakening of the Beaufort Gyre. However, the longevity of ice in the gyre began to change as a result of warming along the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. In the past, sea ice in this gyre could remain in the Arctic for many years, thickening over time. Beginning in the late 1990s, sea ice began melting in the southern arm of the gyre, thanks to warmer air temperatures and more extensive summer melt north of Alaska and Siberia. Moreover, ice movement out of the Arctic through Fram Strait continued at a high rate despite the change in the AO. Thus warming conditions and wind patterns have been the main drivers of the steeper decline since the late 1990s. Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer (Lindsay and Zhang 2005).

Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).


----------



## whitehall (Jun 12, 2013)

The US weather bureau used to base it's forecasts on American computer models until the European model seemed to be more accurate but not perfect. Computer models can't tell where a tornado is going to appear or the next day of a tropical storm. The people who make the computer models about pack ice and warming are paid to come up with a model that their sponsors (UN?-US government?) like. The global warming model makers are like anybody else. They are going to make damned sure that they give the right answers so they can make the next car payment and their kids go to a decent school.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 13, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The US weather bureau used to base it's forecasts on American computer models until the European model seemed to be more accurate but not perfect. Computer models can't tell where a tornado is going to appear or the next day of a tropical storm. The people who make the computer models about pack ice and warming are paid to come up with a model that their sponsors (UN?-US government?) like. The global warming model makers are like anybody else. They are going to make damned sure that they give the right answers so they can make the next car payment and their kids go to a decent school.



Who the hell is talking about computer models? These are real time observations of the ice. Are you incapable of reading? And from not only our satellites, but also those of the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and Russians.

In fact, the computer models that have tried in the past to model the ice, have all predicted far less melt than we are currently seeing.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 13, 2013)

The Russians have started evacuating their drifting research station.

Tauwetter setzte früher ein: Atomeisbrecher rettet Forscher - n-tv.de

Sorry for the German link, but it's all I have. "Atomeisbrecher rettet Forscher" would be "Nuclear icebreaker rescues researchers". The gist of it is that helicopters from the Yamal are evacuating the station now.


----------



## lynn63 (Jun 13, 2013)

By the time everyone agrees climate change is indeed changing, it will be too late to do anything about it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 13, 2013)

It is already too late. The warming that is already in the pipeline will cause significant changes in climate for the whole world. The things that we see happening now are the result of the GHG levels in the 1980's. The levels of today, 400+ ppm for CO2, 1800+ ppb for CH4, bode ill for the next 30 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2013)

The Ice has been melting for the past 14,000 years and it's still 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago....why is "melting ice" newsworthy?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 14, 2013)

Here's the route the Russian icebreaker took to rescue the drifting research station. They started at Murmansk and curved around the pole to avoid thicker ice. The yellow dashed line will be the route back, and they'll unload the research station in a new spot on solid ground on that Siberian island. On the Russian side, there no longer is any safe ice.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Ice has been melting for the past 14,000 years and it's still 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago....why is "melting ice" newsworthy?



1. We have warmed 1.6c since 1680 and .8c since 1880. This gives us understanding about how our planet works.

This is good.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 14, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> By the time everyone agrees climate change is indeed changing, it will be too late to do anything about it.



The rest of the world started doing something about it more than 20 years ago. 

Which is why we now have wind energy that is cheaper than any form of coal. Which is why tidal energy is the fastest growing form of energy production, and which is why some countries have reached 90% market penetration with solar panels. 

The turning point was when oil companies changed sides and admitted thatclimatechange was real - waiting for people like Frank to catch up is not what the world is doing.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2013)

New picture time. The persistent cyclone is winding down. The most recent similar persistent cyclone season was 1989, but the ice was much more solid back then, and thus relatively unaffected by the wind. The current thin ice is getting slushified by the storms, as seen in the colors on the Russian side.

So, there are conflicting effects. The storms reduce sunlight and temps, but they agitate the ice and blow some of it south out the Fram Strait, where it's eventually doomed to melt in the North Atlantic. We're in new territory here, unsure of how it will turn out.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


>



Yep,

This year is following the lower edge of the 1979-2000 avg. That cyclone that is talked about above is causing this.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

Matthew said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...








Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.



If they are so fascinated by ice, you would think the conversation would center on the steady growth of Antarctic ice in direct opposition to the claims of climate science.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.
> ...








I keep telling you, the revisionists don't DO facts.  Facts make them nervous and scared.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2013)

Given that the AGW scientists correctly predicted the Antarctic ice growth ahead of time, the cranks look kind of crazy for claiming they ignored it. I guess in crankland, "predicted" = "ignored".

The current ice area is being kept up by behind-schedule (compared to recent years) melts in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, due to the cold weather there over May. That will be meaningless in the final tally, since Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay always melt out completely. 

It's what's happening in the central arctic that's going to determine the final tally. The slushified areas there are still counted as ice-covered in the tally, despite their fragility. Melting near the pole is more a factor of water temperature than of sunlight and air temperature, so increased ice surface area in contact with water is a significant factor.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Given that the AGW scientists correctly predicted the Antarctic ice growth ahead of time, the cranks look kind of crazy for claiming they ignored it. I guess in crankland, "predicted" = "ignored".
> 
> The current ice area is being kept up by behind-schedule (compared to recent years) melts in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, due to the cold weather there over May. That will be meaningless in the final tally, since Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay always melt out completely.
> 
> It's what's happening in the central arctic that's going to determine the final tally. The slushified areas there are still counted as ice-covered in the tally, despite their fragility. Melting near the pole is more a factor of water temperature than of sunlight and air temperature, so increased ice surface area in contact with water is a significant factor.







Sheer and utter bullshit.  You revisionists forget there's a internet and all of your predictions are online for all the world to see....  You really do suck as a propagandist...

Here are just TWO of hundreds.....  Better start learning how to do the backstroke....


Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2013)

*Ol' Walleyes is lying once again. All too easy to copy the links;*

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. 

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2013)

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Is Antarctica Melting?01.12.10 The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
Larger Image

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there&#8217;s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there&#8217;s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sheer and utter bullshit.



Yes, that would be how you linked to discussions about Antarctic land ice when the topic was the correct prediction of the Antarctic sea ice growth by AGW scientists. Why did you think you could pull off that kind of dishonest stunt? You have to have learned by now that I always call you out when you pull that kind of sleaze.

Pout and squeal all you want, declare how your cult says it can't be possible, but AGW scientists correctly predicted Antarctic sea ice growth way ahead of time. 

Let me go dig such a prediction out of the archives. Ah, right here, page 795, from a 1991 paper.

S. Manabe, R. J. Stouffer, M. J. Spelman and K. Bryan
---
It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
---

There. I've backed my case. Time for you to back yours, by giving us some direct sources showing AGW scientists predicting an immediate Antarctic sea ice melt.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ol' Walleyes is lying once again. All too easy to copy the links;*
> 
> Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
> 
> ...








Poor olfraud, don't you realize that you have zero credibility?  No one but your fellow travelers believe your BS anymore.... tsk tsk...


Vast Antarctic ice sheet 'in play' with global warming - World News

Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica

Is Global Warming Melting Antarctica's Ice? | LiveScience

And on and on..though it is amusing to see your "experts" fall all over themselves trying to cover their asses with their failed predictions that global warming was causing the Antarctic to melt at an "ever increasing rate".

You guys are so full of shit you no longer know which way is up.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sheer and utter bullshit.
> ...








Once again I say bullshit.  They didn't start with that lie till TWO years ago.  Before that it was all AGW is melting the Antarctic ice at an ever increasing rate.  Screw you and your pathetic lies.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Once again I say bullshit.



Running so soon? Yeah, that sure surprised everyone.

I showed you were full of shit, as usual, using documentation. Instead of just admitting you were wrong, or simply quietly slinking away (which I always allow, being I'm a gracious forgiving soul), you choose instead to double down on "dishonest" and start deliberately lying. That's because you've always been too much of a sacless wonder to ever admit you made a mistake.

I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. You're being a little bitch, crying because you got humiliated again. How 'bout you man up for a change, instead of pissing your pants whenever I speak? And if you can't stop pissing yourself, you'd think you'd learn to avoid talking with me, knowing that it's just going to result in you needing to change your pants again.


----------



## westwall (Jun 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Once again I say bullshit.
> ...







No, you didn't you silly twerp.  The only thing you have proven is your complete lack of reality.  See ya later admiral


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

Well, they did predict that the antarctic ice would grow after it refused to melt and continued to grow.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)




----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Walleyes, you dumb fuck, the paper was from 1991. It blows your lies right out of the water.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


>



Nice way to post a lie. Here is the whole graph;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Ol' Walleyes is lying once again. All too easy to copy the links;*
> ...



Global Warming Impact Zones | Antarctica

Antarctica is covered by two ice sheets. The larger East Antarctic ice sheet covers the majority of the continent, while the West Antarctic ice sheet has significant ice shelves floating in the ocean. Taken together, they contain about 90 percent of Earths ice, 70 percent of its freshwater, and contain enough water to raise sea level by around 200 feet if they were to melt completely.

In the spring of 2002, scientists were shocked to discover that an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island had disintegrated in just over a month from the West Antarctica ice sheet. The collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf was a wake up call to scientists who had thought that these large areas of ice would take a millennium to disappear, not a month.

But the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf was only the tip of the iceberg for ice loss in the Antarctic. Satellite measurements made by NASA since 2002 show that Antacrtica as a whole is losing mass at an accelerating rate.


Because the floating ice of the West Antarctic is subject to both warming air and ocean temperatures, scientists think it is especially vulnerable to global warming. Until recently, it was thought that only coastal areas of the West Antarctic were vulnerable to melting. But satellite analysis has revealed that large inland regions are also showing signs of the impacts of warming. There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known to be occurring in West Antarctica, East Antarctica has also been losing ice since 2006.   

Human activities have been identified as an important driver of Antarctic climate change, though a complex set of natural factors are also important. Rigorous analysis of temperature trends show that Antarctica has been warming at an average rate of about 0.2 °F per decade (from 1957 to 2006) or about 1°F for the last half century, roughly comparable to the warming observed for the globe as a whole. Arctic warming is expected to continue as greenhouse gas concentrations rise and the ozone hole heals.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

Vast Antarctic ice sheet 'in play' with global warming - World News

By Miguel Llanos, NBC News

Scientists have long focused on Antarctica&#8217;s smaller ice sheet as being vulnerable to warming, but two new studies project that part of the continent's much larger ice sheet is also at risk -- and that ice now held back on land there could add to sea level rise by 2100.


Follow @msnbc_us

"This is the first legitimate evidence that this part of Antarctica is in play," Bob Bindschadler, a NASA earth scientist who has studied Antarctica for 30 years, told msnbc.com. "The potential, the reservoir of ice ... is vast."

In fact, that area, known as the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, has 10 times as much ice as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, used a computer model to project what would happen in Antarctica's Weddell Sea if temperatures rose in line with U.N. projections for 2100.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

Is Global Warming Melting Antarctica's Ice? | LiveScience

Over the course of the past 50 years, climate records show that while regional air temperatures have decreased in much of the Antarctic, in the Antarctic Peninsula they have increased by 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 degrees Celsius), or about five times the rate of warming measured for the rest of the world, according to NASA.

NASA uses satellites to measure average global temperatures by monitoring heat-sensitive objects on the ground while also incorporating records from the European Space Agency's Remote Sensing Satellites (ERS) and the Canadian Space Agency's RADARSAT satellite. Using this data, NASA determined that climate warming cause the disintegration of large ice shelves (platforms of ice spanning from the shore into the ocean) in the Antarctic Peninsula in 1995 and 2002. Many of these ice shelves are continuing to crumble.

"Ice around the edges of most of Antarctica is melting or calving off into icebergs more than it is snowing inland, as there's not enough snow to replace the ice that is lost around the edges," Pettit told Life's Little Mysteries. "So yes, in total we are losing ice for much of Antarctica, with the most ice being lost in the Antarctic Peninsula."

*Dang, Walleyes, every one of these articles states that Antarctica is losing ice, and may start losing it at an even more rapid pace as the ocean warms in response to global warming. Was that your intent? Have you finally agreed with 97% of the other scientists in the world?*


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Given that the AGW scientists correctly predicted the Antarctic ice growth ahead of time, the cranks look kind of crazy for claiming they ignored it. I guess in crankland, "predicted" = "ignored".
> 
> The current ice area is being kept up by behind-schedule (compared to recent years) melts in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, due to the cold weather there over May. That will be meaningless in the final tally, since Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay always melt out completely.
> 
> It's what's happening in the central arctic that's going to determine the final tally. The slushified areas there are still counted as ice-covered in the tally, despite their fragility. Melting near the pole is more a factor of water temperature than of sunlight and air temperature, so increased ice surface area in contact with water is a significant factor.



let me get this straight....you are saying that climate science has/is predicting ice growth for Antarctica?

or are you saying that some predictions are for gain/ some are for loss, and that there are enough predictions made in any direction for anywhere that you can find one to support your position, no matter how often it changes?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

No, Ian, he stated flat out that the scientists predicted sea ice growth for Antarctica. There were some that thought that the warming would cause more snow to fall on the continent, but that has not turned out to be the case. And while the sea ice is increasing, it melts almost completely every year. In the meantime, the continent is losing an ever increasing amount of ice.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Idiot.  Try posting a graph that describes the same thing.  Do you understand the difference between a graph describing ice thickness and a graph describing a volume anomoly?  Guess not.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> let me get this straight....you are saying that climate science has/is predicting ice growth for Antarctica?
> 
> or are you saying that some predictions are for gain/ some are for loss, and that there are enough predictions made in any direction for anywhere that you can find one to support your position, no matter how often it changes?



His story was from 2010.  I did some looking and if you go further back, you don't find any stories predicting antarctic ice growth...prior to the time that it was becoming clear that the antarctic was not going to melt, all of the predictions were for rapid melting and incredible sea level increases.

They predicted melting till it didn't melt then they predicted growth after it was clear that the ice was growing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > let me get this straight....you are saying that climate science has/is predicting ice growth for Antarctica?
> ...








Exactly right.  Prior to 2010 all claims were melting, then rapid melting, then melting faster than they ever could have imagined then ooooppps, the brakes came on and they swiftly changed their tune.

olfraud et al are merely trying to revise history like the good little lackeys they are.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2013)

So the denialists are _still_ refusing to acknowledge the 1991 climate science paper that specifically predicted the increase in Antarctic sea ice? Of course they are. It's what cultists do.

Do they consider themselves liars? Not really. I think Westwall honestly thinks he's an honest person, as a result of his cult programming. It's part of the cult indoctrination, the cult defining its own members as morally perfect and incapable of lying. Thus, cultists are emotionally unable to process the fact that their cult lied to them. Since, in their eyes, the cult can't lie, that means the bearer of bad news who showed the cult was lying has to be a liar himself. And that would be why poor Westwall goes so unhinged whenever someone shows him how his cult lied.

And the evidence of the cult's lies? Simple refuse to acknowledge such a thing exists. If the bearer of bad news insists on bringing it up again, switch to endless personal attacks to divert attention.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So the denialists are _still_ refusing to acknowledge the 1991 climate science paper that specifically predicted the increase in Antarctic sea ice? Of course they are. It's what cultists do.



Your 1991 paper doesn't support your claims.  First he is only talking about increased thickness of sea ice, not continental ice...second, he notes that the increase is surprising..and why would it be surprising?...because all of the predictions were for general ice loss in Antarctica..sea ice and continental ice.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So the denialists are _still_ refusing to acknowledge the 1991 climate science paper that specifically predicted the increase in Antarctic sea ice? Of course they are. It's what cultists do.
> ...










You must remember SSDD, their reading comprehension is *LOOOOOW*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Damn, you are truly a dumb fuck, Walleyes. Thickness has a bit to do with volume. And note SSDD's graph was from the last 2 and 1/2 months of 2012, and the first four months of 2013. In other words, the ice increased in thickness from mid-October to mid-March. Is that just fucking amazing. Arctic ice increases in thickness during the winter. 

It is this kind of posting that demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of people like you and SSDD.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









It might help your cause to target your vitriol at the proper target idjit.  That's not my post you are responding to.  Man, you have issues...serious issues.


Your profound apology is duly accepted...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Your 1991 paper doesn't support your claims.  First he is only talking about increased thickness of sea ice



My factual statement (as has been proven) was about sea ice. Yep, I left out the word "sea". Sloppy of me. However, given that it's a thread about sea ice, that should have made it obvious. As would the fact that land ice is decreasing while sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic.

You're just upset because I so conclusively debunked the "Scientists thought antarctic sea ice would decline!" denialist mantra. Mantras are so precious to denialists, because lacking facts, mantras are all they have. So when they lose one, it really stings.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your 1991 paper doesn't support your claims.  First he is only talking about increased thickness of sea ice
> ...








You posted a SINGLE paper nimrod.  Thousands said otherwise, and, as was pointed out to you, the author was stupefied (how unsurprising) that the ice was increasing in defiance of everything else being written.   He just bothered to look at the real numbers instead of the fiction that everyone else was looking at called computer models.

You couldn't "conclusively debunk" 9/11 much less this.


----------



## IanC (Jun 21, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Ian, he stated flat out that the scientists predicted sea ice growth for Antarctica. There were some that thought that the warming would cause more snow to fall on the continent, but that has not turned out to be the case. And while the sea ice is increasing, it melts almost completely every year. In the meantime, the continent is losing an ever increasing amount of ice.




I couldnt be bothered to find papers that have predicted the opposite of mamooth's citation but you can be sure that there are some.

you said, " In the meantime, the continent is losing an ever increasing amount of ice." the predictions for ice loss in Antarctica were much larger a decade ago and have progressively become smaller, to the point that there are now papers that show ice mass gain. where do you get this 'ever increasing loss' BS? sounds very similar to your 'ever increasing global temp' meme, even though global temps have stayed flat for 15 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, Ian, he stated flat out that the scientists predicted sea ice growth for Antarctica. There were some that thought that the warming would cause more snow to fall on the continent, but that has not turned out to be the case. And while the sea ice is increasing, it melts almost completely every year. In the meantime, the continent is losing an ever increasing amount of ice.
> ...



Really Ian. A flat statement with no links to back it up?

Icebergs Get the Headlines, but Warm Oceans Are the Major Reason for Ice Loss in Antarctica - At the Edge (usnews.com)

Startling video and pictures of massive, intact pieces of ice breaking off from the continent of Antarctica  known as "calving"  are some of the most iconic, vivid images in our minds. The ice shelves that break off to become icebergs have fostered a general belief that the loss of mass on Antarctica is mostly due to this calving process.


New research, though, says huge losses of ice in Antarctica are due to something else  warm water beneath the ice shelves.

The first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves by NASA and academic researchers found it is actually a warmer ocean  and not icebergs  that is responsible for the ice shelves' mass loss being documented by other ongoing research.

[READ: United States' Contribution to Global Warming Decreased in 2012]

"The traditional view on Antarctic mass loss is it is almost entirely controlled by iceberg calving," said Eric Rignot, who is with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is the lead author of a study published in the June 14 issue of Science magazine. "Our study shows melting from below by the ocean waters is larger, and this should change our perspective on the evolution of the ice sheet in a warming climate."

The research team combined data from a variety of sources - including satellite surveillance, airplane readings and reconstructed models of ice accumulation  to put together the first-ever survey of the entire continent and compare it to what is already known about ice sheet melting rates. The research was conducted from 2003-2008.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

NASA - Warm Ocean Causing Most Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss

PASADENA, Calif. -- Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found. 

Scientists have studied the rates of basal melt, or the melting of the ice shelves from underneath, of individual ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers that empty into the sea. But this is the first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves. The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought. 

Antarctica holds about 60 percent of the planet's fresh water locked into its massive ice sheet. Ice shelves buttress the glaciers behind them, modulating the speed at which these rivers of ice flow into the ocean. Determining how ice shelves melt will help scientists improve projections of how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to sea level rise. It also will improve global models of ocean circulation by providing a better estimate of the amount of fresh water ice shelf melting adds to Antarctic coastal waters.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Ice sheets and sea-level rise &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division

Since late 2005 (the cut-off date for work assessed by IPCC AR4), further studies of ice accumulation and loss ('mass budget') in Greenland and Antarctica have been made using satellite altimetry, satellite gravity measurements and estimates of the difference between net snowfall and discharge of ice. These confirm that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass and contributing to sea level rise.

These new estimates suggest that the total annual loss from Antarctica since 1993 is around 100 Gt/yr (100 billion tonnes of ice per year; equivalent to ~0.25 mm/yr of global sea level rise). While the range of estimates from the different studies is large (from near zero to 0.5 mm/yr of sea level rise) they all suggest a net loss. Ice loss has been greatest along coastal sectors of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. However, ice thickening (gain) further inland and over most of East Antarctica may have partially offset this loss. All of the available estimates, however, show that the loss of mass in West Antarctica is greater than any added mass in East Antarctica.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Thousands said otherwise,



Then find one. Show us a paper predicting Antarctic sea ice melt. If you're not lying, and there are thousands of such papers, it should be trivial to find one. 

When I make a claim, I back it up. When you make a claim, you scream "It's obvious!" and run. That's the level of science we've learned to expect from you.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands said otherwise,
> ...











When you decide to go full stupid you certainly accomplish your goal, the few below are the result of a .12 second google search....  There are at least another 70 pages that came up.

Knock yourself out admiral...

Waking the giant: Global Warming in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica and sea level rise : Indybay

Southern Ocean warming impact on Antarctic Ice Sheet and global sea level rise : Indybay

SOTC: Sea Level

SOTC: Sea Level

Sea Level Rise and its Effect on Delaware

Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds - CNN.com

Ice sheets and sea-level rise &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2013)

You're still batting zero. None of your sources showed anyone in the past predicting an Antarctic sea ice decrease.

So, you tried to divert from your mistake with a load of crap, hoping you wouldn't get called on it. I have no idea why you think you can get away with that tactic, given I always check things out and call you on it.

Why do you continue with these lie-a-thons? Wouldn't it be much easier to just admit you made a mistake, instead of all the pouting and screaming and doubling down on the big lie?

I'll never understand the emotional immaturity that prevents someone from admitting an error. Yet almost every denialist displays it. Kind of explains why they get sucked into the cult, since the cult reinforces to them they're special little snowflakes who are always on the side of right.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

*They are not talking about the yearly sea ice, but the shelf ice. Once again, you stand exposed for the liar you are.*


Waking the giant: Global Warming in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica and sea level rise : Indybay

A NASA and British Antarctic Survey study, published in Nature in April 2012, highlighted that 20 of the 54 ice shelves studied in Antarctica are being melted by warm ocean currents. Most of the present impact is in West Antarctica where ocean driven thining is responsible for rapid ice losses by the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers.

"We can lose an awful lot of ice to the sea without ever having summers warm enough to make the snow on top of the glaciers melt," said the study's lead author Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, United Kingdom. "The oceans can do all the work from below."

This highlights that much of the global warming taking place is happening in the world's oceans. Atmospheric temperature rises are just the metaphorical tip of the iceberg of the global warming effect on increasing ocean warming.

In Antarctica and above the southern ocean wind patterns are changing, which are changing ocean currents. The incease in basal melt and glacier acceleration has been linked to changes in wind patterns. "Studies have shown Antarctic winds have changed because of changes in climate," Pritchard said. "This has affected the strength and direction of ocean currents. As a result warm water is funnelled beneath the floating ice. These studies and our new results suggest Antarctica's glaciers are responding rapidly to a changing climate."

Dr Hamish Pritchard explains further from the British Antarctic Survey media release:

"In most places in Antarctica, we can't explain the ice-shelf thinning through melting of snow at the surface, so it has to be driven by warm ocean currents melting them from below."
 "We've looked all around the Antarctic coast and we see a clear pattern: in all the cases where ice shelves are being melted by the ocean, the inland glaciers are speeding up. It's this glacier acceleration that's responsible for most of the increase in ice loss from the continent and this is contributing to sea-level rise."

"What's really interesting is just how sensitive these glaciers seem to be. Some ice shelves are thinning by a few metres a year and, in response, the glaciers drain billions of tons of ice into the sea. This supports the idea that ice shelves are important in slowing down the glaciers that feed them, controlling the loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet. It means that we can lose an awful lot of ice to the sea without ever having summers warm enough to make the snow on top of the glaciers melt -- the oceans can do all the work from below."

"But this does raise the question of why this is happening now. We think that it's linked to changes in wind patterns. Studies have shown that Antarctic winds have changed because of changes in climate, and that this has affected the strength and direction of ocean currents. As a result warm water is funnelled beneath the floating ice. These studies and our new results therefore suggest that Antarctica's glaciers are responding rapidly to a changing climate."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Southern Ocean warming impact on Antarctic Ice Sheet and global sea level rise : Indybay

Climate change is causing the southern ocean to warm and freshen which will melt ice shelves and glacier tongues affecting glacier discharge and producing Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss and global sea level rise. A new study shows that small temperature changes of the Southern Ocean can contribute to far-reaching changes on the Antarctic ice sheet that could lead to substantial future sea-level rise.

*Again, the continental ice and ice shelves. Not the sea ice.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

SOTC: Sea Level

Current conditions: contribution from melting glaciers

Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).

Antarctica and Greenland, the world's largest ice sheets, make up the vast majority of the Earth's ice. If these ice sheets melted entirely, sea level would rise by more than 70 meters. However, current estimates indicate that mass balance for the Antarctic ice sheet is in approximate equilibrium and may represent only about 10 percent of the current contribution to sea level rise coming from glaciers. However, some localized areas of the Antarctic have recently shown significant negative balance, e.g., Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers, and glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula. There is still much uncertainty about accumulation rates in Antarctica, especially on the East Antarctic Plateau. The Greenland Ice Sheet may be contributing about 30 percent of all glacier melt to rising sea level. Furthermore, recent observations show evidence for increased ice flow rates in some regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet, suggesting that ice dynamics may be a key factor in the response of coastal glaciers and ice sheets to climate change and their role in sea level rise.

In contrast to the polar regions, the network of lower latitude small glaciers and ice caps, although making up only about four percent of the total land ice area or about 760,000 square kilometers, may have provided as much as 60 percent of the total glacier contribution to sea level change since 1990s

*Again, nothing at all about sea ice, other than one statement that it does not contribute to sea level rise.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Sea Level Rise and its Effect on Delaware

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet 

Earths largest quantity of ice sitting on rock is Antarctica. The upper reaches of Antarctic are at high elevation and the mass of ice is so large, that it is much less subject to air temperature. However, on the edges of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are sea ice and ice shelves. As shown in Figure 6, large sections of Larsen B ice shelf are starting to break off into the ocean. When the ice shelf goes (again, floating ice does not raise sea level), we are left with the very large West Antarctic ice sheet, which consists of ice sitting on sloping rock (the pinched off area on the left side of the inset area map). 

Think about a heavy pack of snow on your roof, as the weather starts to warm up. Like your roof, water underneath the West Antarctic ice sheet lubricates the ice, allowing the snow and ice to slide off. If the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet melts, sea level will rise 8.06 meters (26 feet  referenced shortly). Since this sheet is unstable and could slide much more quickly than melting, sometimes only the unstable portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is discussed. Considering only the portion that might slide off before melting, that part would raise global sea level by 4 to 6 meters (ONeill and Oppenheimer 2002).

*No mention of Antarctic Sea Ice, just ice shelves.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds - CNN.com

Again, nothing at all on sea ice, just the continental and shelf ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2013)

*Well, Walleyes, again nothing on the Antarctic Sea Ice. So what the hell do you think that you are dealing with here, a bunch of illiterates that won't check you referances? You are a fraud. *

Ice sheets and sea-level rise &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division

These new estimates suggest that the total annual loss from Antarctica since 1993 is around 100 Gt/yr (100 billion tonnes of ice per year; equivalent to ~0.25 mm/yr of global sea level rise). While the range of estimates from the different studies is large (from near zero to 0.5 mm/yr of sea level rise) they all suggest a net loss. Ice loss has been greatest along coastal sectors of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. However, ice thickening (gain) further inland and over most of East Antarctica may have partially offset this loss. All of the available estimates, however, show that the loss of mass in West Antarctica is greater than any added mass in East Antarctica.


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




how is this thread any different than the last thread we discussed this on? I couldnt be bothered to dredge up Zwally's presentations yet again. in case you havent noticed, generic 'chicken little' press releases get splashed over the media with google links galore. information contrary to CAGW, even when it comes from organizations like NASA, usually gets little publicity and you actually have to know where to look for it. Zwally made a big fuss over the glaciers losing mass on the penninsula, and in the last throw-away gesture stated that the continent as a whole was gaining almost 50GT per year.

Antarctica is a poster child for ridiculous CAGW alarmist claims. every new paper claims that _now_ they know what is going on. until the next paper comes out and they have to scale back yet again. but they sure love to bring up the factoid about 'if the WAIS collapses the sea level will rise 30 metres' even though the next IPCC report will guestimate about 0.5 millimetre per year, and even that is wrong if Antarctica is really gaining mass.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

"It's obvious" is _still_ not support for a claim. But I guess it's all denialists have. It's all they've ever had.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 22, 2013)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Your evidence for this is?


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Zwally's presentations to NASA in 2011 and 2012. we have discussed it before.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

Jay Zwally's is the minority opinion. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But it's rather premature to declare Zwally has to be the correct voice.

In any case, Zwally's work is only about Antarctic land ice.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Jay Zwally's is the minority opinion. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But it's rather premature to declare Zwally has to be the correct voice.
> 
> In any case, Zwally's work is only about Antarctic land ice.








Since satellites began gathering data way back in 1979 the Antarctic sea ice has seen nothing but steady growth.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Since satellites began gathering data way back in 1979 the Antarctic sea ice has seen nothing but steady growth.



As predicted by AGW scientists.

Just a small part of the track record of correct predictions that gives them so much credibility. If your side wants the same credibility, you need to spend several decades making predictions and having them proven to be correct.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Since satellites began gathering data way back in 1979 the Antarctic sea ice has seen nothing but steady growth.
> ...









Really?  Show us three papers from the early 2000's that assert that.  Just three.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

There's a good piece on Scpetical Science about this:

t's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

    Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
    Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. The satellites measure changes in gravity to determine mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Initial observations found that that most of Antarctic mass loss comes from Western Antarctica (Velicogna 2007). Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2005, East Antarctica was in approximate mass balance. The ice gained in the interior is roughly balanced by the ice loss at the edges. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which contrasts the ice mass changes in West Antarctica (red) compared to East Antarctica (green):






Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 23, 2013)

Also this gives a good insight, from the same source:


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2013)

Extreme high temps over Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. Many record highs being set.

Canada Weather Map - Current Temperatures of Canada °F or °C - Find Local Weather

Why?

The north polar jetstream is driven by the temp difference between the mid-lat region and the polar region.

When the arctic warms, that delta-T goes down, and the jetstream weakens.

When the jet weakens, it starts meandering like a slow river. Big loops going way up north and way down south.

That lets warm air flow north, and cold air flow south. So you get these warm spells in the Arctic along with cool spells in the lower 48.


----------



## IanC (Jun 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> There's a good piece on Scpetical Science about this:
> 
> t's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
> 
> ...





hmmm, I thought I had already responded to this post. anyways.....

when you look at the graph what do you see? is it really possible that the Antarctic gained 800 gigatons of ice in 2002? when does that graph actually start showing ice loss?

I am always surprised when people read these stories and just gullibly accept the assumptions and conclusions that are implied. did anyone else notice anything odd or did you just look at the dashed trend lines and say, "yup, west is shrinking, east is flat". how many of you actually read the link to SkS? did it make sense to you?


here is another companion graph from that article-






hmmm..... so Antarctica did gain 800GT in 2002? and didn't start losing mass until 2006? what????


----------



## mamooth (Jul 3, 2013)

This is kind of cool, an animation of the last month's melt. Requires letting a Java app run, and kind of a big download.

Cryosphere Today - Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere Animation

Nothing earth-shattering. The northwest passage is melting fast, except the west end, which is plugged by 4-meter ice that the storms blew that way, meaning it won't open for a long time, if at all. Ice melt started slow, but has accelerated the past few days. Still way too early to make any calls.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2013)

This thread seems to have been abandoned.  Why?

There is some interesting sea ice news lately...the group that was going to row a boat through the northwest passage gave up in the middle of july after rowing exactly zero miles through the northwest passage...it is completely blocked with ice.  In fact, they didn't even get to the fabled northwest passage.

As concerned as you all seemed to be over melting, I would have thought that this thread would have been jumping over the good news that the ice is doing great this year.  

I guess you realy weren't concerned about the ice at all.


----------



## gslack (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> This thread seems to have been abandoned.  Why?
> 
> There is some interesting sea ice news lately...the group that was going to row a boat through the northwest passage gave up in the middle of july after rowing exactly zero miles through the northwest passage...it is completely blocked with ice.  In fact, they didn't even get to the fabled northwest passage.
> 
> ...



It's the standard cut and run warmer BS.. But don't worry as soon as the ice melts somewhere they will make another thread..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> This thread seems to have been abandoned.  Why?



Because "the ice is melting very fast" has already been stated. Not much point in rephrasing that.

Arctic ice levels are really low, but not quite as low as 2012. To an intelligent person, that would mean the arctic is warming. To the gibbering retard crowd, the fact that a record doesn't get broken every year is an excuse to declare warming has stopped. Because yes, they really are that dumb.



> There is some interesting sea ice news lately...the group that was going to row a boat through the northwest passage gave up in the middle of july after rowing exactly zero miles through the northwest passage...it is completely blocked with ice.  In fact, they didn't even get to the fabled northwest passage.



Passages in 2012 were all late August and early September. Of course it's still ice-blocked. It's still freakin' July. Acting as if that "news" meant something is typical of your poorly informed nature.


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2013)

here is a link to a compilation of information about the Arctic in the first half of the 20th century.
Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 | Climate Etc.

eg.- 





> Page 12 of Hubert Lamb&#8217;s &#8216;Climate History and the Modern World&#8217; (originally published 1982 using material collated during the previous decade) notes &#8216;&#8230;from around the beginning of the century up to 1940 a substantial climate change was in progress, average temperatures were rising,  most of all in the arctic where the sea ice was receding&#8230;the almost four and a half decades of near immunity to very cold winters ended abruptly with Europe&#8217;s notably severe war winters in 1940, 41 and 42 and another in 1947.&#8217;
> 
> Page 259  comments  &#8216;&#8230;warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940 &#8230;it was during the second and third decades of the (20th) century that the climatic warming became noticeable to everybody,  places near the arctic fringe such as Iceland, Spitsbergen and even Toronto experienced warming that was from twice to five times as great&#8230; the average total areas of the arctic sea ice seems to have declined by about between 10 and 20% &#8230;.when account is also taken of the changes in the atmospheric circulation and hence in the distribution of rainfall and its variability as well, it is hardly too much to say that the twentieth century climate regime from 1920 to 1960 changed the world.&#8217; Page 261 &#8216;&#8230; the frequency of snow and ice decreased generally and the retreat of the glaciers from about 1925 became rapid.&#8217;



I am not saying that ice extent numbers are cherry picked, but it was fortuitous for the warmers that satellite coverage started in earnest about 1979, when levels were high. from AR1, the first IPCC report-


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2013)

Quote:
Page 12 of Hubert Lamb&#8217;s &#8216;Climate History and the Modern World&#8217; (originally published 1982 using material collated during the previous decade) notes &#8216;&#8230;from around the beginning of the century up to 1940 a substantial climate change was in progress, average temperatures were rising, most of all in the arctic where the sea ice was receding&#8230;the almost four and a half decades of near immunity to very cold winters ended abruptly with Europe&#8217;s notably severe war winters in 1940, 41 and 42 and another in 1947.&#8217; 

Page 259 comments &#8216;&#8230;warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940 &#8230;it was during the second and third decades of the (20th) century that the climatic warming became noticeable to everybody, places near the arctic fringe such as Iceland, Spitsbergen and even Toronto experienced warming that was from twice to five times as great&#8230; the average total areas of the arctic sea ice seems to have declined by about between 10 and 20% &#8230;.when account is also taken of the changes in the atmospheric circulation and hence in the distribution of rainfall and its variability as well, it is hardly too much to say that the twentieth century climate regime from 1920 to 1960 changed the world.&#8217; Page 261 &#8216;&#8230; the frequency of snow and ice decreased generally and the retreat of the glaciers from about 1925 became rapid.&#8217;

*Compared to this;*

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2013)

IanC said:


> I am not saying that ice extent numbers are cherry picked, but it was fortuitous for the warmers that satellite coverage started in earnest about 1979, when levels were high.



Let's look at levels for the past century. From Kinnard et al. (2008), reproduced in Polyak et al. (2010) (with graph image web-hosted by Tamino). The trend for the whole century is down. 1979 is a spike higher than the years around it, but lower than the pre-1940 trend. So there goes the "1979 was a high fluke!" theory. 

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2013)

The July 27 Navy ice motion forecast, showing the big cyclone being predicted. Be interesting to see what it does.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 23, 2013)

With Arctic ice melt, ships now ply the Northern Sea Route

Here is possibly one of the rare pluses of climate change.

Melting sea ice means that Arctic shipping is set for a record year, reports the Financial Times.

As of Tuesday, 232 ships had received permission from Russia's Northern Sea Route Administration to transit what used to be called the Northeastern Passage. 

How quickly things change.

in 2009, two German ships made history by navigating from South Korea to Rotterdam via the Northeast Passage.

 "Plenty have tried," noted a report in Time that year. "For centuries, sailors have searched for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the icy waters off Russia's northern coast. Otherwise known as the Northern Sea Route, the passage &#8212; from Siberia to the Bering Strait &#8212; promised a speedy sea route between Europe and Asia for anyone who could make it. But caked in ice during winter and pretty much inhospitable because of floating ice in summer, the route has remained largely off-limits."

And then, the report noted, "Global warming may change that."

In 2010, four vessels sailed through the Northeastern route.

In 2012, 46 sailed through.

And now, 232. So far.

The northern route shaves ten days off the time to sail between Rotterdam and Kobe, in Japan, or Busan, in South Korea. Instead of 33 days via the Suez Canal, it takes 23 via the formerly ice-bound waters

Read more at With Arctic ice melt, ships now ply the Northern Sea Route


----------



## westwall (Jul 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> With Arctic ice melt, ships now ply the Northern Sea Route
> 
> Here is possibly one of the rare pluses of climate change.
> 
> ...







Oh looky, it's so rare for the ice to be not there that it wasn't until 1878 that Nordenskiöld  first was able to transit that area.  Between 1877 and 1919, 75 of 122 convoys that attempted the passage succeeded.  Yeppers it's so uncommon that hundreds of vessels did it before the turn of LAST century

Read a damned book on history sometime....

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Northeast_Passage.aspx


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> here is a link to a compilation of information about the Arctic in the first half of the 20th century.
> Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 | Climate Etc.
> 
> eg.-
> ...





here is mamooth's graph-






one was compiled at the beginning of global warming hysteria before it was known just how much 'facts and figures' could be 'adjusted'. the other during the heyday of global warming hysteria when everyone was climbing over each other to print something even more alarming than the last.

can you tell which one is which?

hey mamooth- hard to believe the two graphs are of the same thing, in the same place, isn't it? the overlapping portion of the two graphs aren't exactly identical, are they?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > With Arctic ice melt, ships now ply the Northern Sea Route
> ...



http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Northeast_Passage.aspx

Northeast Passage, water route along the northern coast of Europe and Asia, between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Beginning in the 15th cent., efforts were made to find a new all-water route to India and China. Most of these attempts were directed at seeking a Northwest Passage. However, English, Dutch, and Russian navigators did try to seek a northeast route by sailing along the northern coast of Russia and far into the arctic seas.

In the 1550s, English ships made the first attempt to find the passage. Willem Barentz, the Dutch navigator, made several futile voyages in the 1590s, as did Henry Hudson in the early 17th cent. The decline of Dutch shipping in the 1700s left the exploration mainly to the Russians; among the men sent out was Vitus Bering, who explored the eastern part of the passage. The Russian Great Northern Expedition (173343) explored most of the coast of N Siberia. The Northeast Passage was not, however, traversed by anyone until Nils A. E. Nordenskjöld of Sweden accomplished the feat in 187879. In the early 1900s, icebreakers sailed through the passage, and in the 1930s the Northern Sea Route, a shipping lane, was established by the USSR.

Since World War II the Soviet Union and now Russia has maintained a regular summer-to-autumn highway for shipping along this passage through the development of new ports and the exploitation of resources in the interior. A fleet of Russian icebreakers, aided by aerial reconnaissance and by radio weather stations, keeps the route navigable until the expansion of the ice in winter prevents shipping. The decrease in ocean ice in the Arctic due to global warming has led to an increase of shipping through the Arctic and to the creation of shipping lanes further from the Russian coast; the routes cut the distance between N Eurasian Atlantic and Pacific ports by several thousand miles.

*Perhaps you posted the wrong source? No mention of the number of ships or 'convoys' prior to 1919 in this article.*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> hey mamooth- hard to believe the two graphs are of the same thing, in the same place, isn't it? the overlapping portion of the two graphs aren't exactly identical, are they?



This again. The data says you're wrong, so you're declaring the data is forged. It's a fine conspiracy theory, and the impossibility of disproving it is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2013)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > here is a link to a compilation of information about the Arctic in the first half of the 20th century.
> ...



while I have implied that agendas may have influenced the selection and presentation of available information, I haven't said anything was forged.

Two lawyers working from the same set of information often come to different conclusions. Science is supposed to be searching for the truth but sometimes it seems to be only looking for corroborating evidence to performed conclusions.


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Here you go, I actually got my info from a BOOK.  So I had to go out and do your research for you once again....

"From 1877 Kara expeditions were organised from time to time to bring Siberian agricultural products and minerals to the world market through the Kara Sea. Seventy-five out of one hundred and twenty-two Kara voyages were successful in the period from 1877 to 1919. The total amount of cargo was 55 thousand tons. Failures of Kara expeditions were explained by the absence of proper navigation equipment, ports and icebreakers." 


The Way to Siberia


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




.... and I was just considering giving away my old encyclopedia.. Now I think it's insurance against the "revisionists" of science.. Think I'll keep it after all..


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Never, ever get rid of good old encyclopedias.  Ever.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well thank you. I love articles like that. However, voyages from the Kara Sea are not full voyages of the Northeastern Passage. And 232 large modern vessels planning to use the route this summer will definitaly be a paradigm shift in sea transportation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









Yes, it helps when you are not subject to the vagaries of wind for your power.  However, please note the use of sections all the way back to the 1500's.  So you see, it truly is nothing new.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2013)

Piomass data, low point of the ice volume decreasing for the last three years, high point staying virtually the same. Interesting;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2013)

A TEU is equal to 14 metric tons. According to the chart in this article, only a couple of todays ships could equal all the tonnage shipped through the Northeast Passage prior to 1919.

Yes, over 200 of these ships using the Northeast Passage is a paradigm change, particularly if there are no icebreakers required.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> A TEU is equal to 14 metric tons. According to the chart in this article, only a couple of todays ships could equal all the tonnage shipped through the Northeast Passage prior to 1919.
> 
> Yes, over 200 of these ships using the Northeast Passage is a paradigm change, particularly if there are no icebreakers required.








So, since we're comparing apples to star ships, todays airliners are no more technologically advanced than say a Voison....right....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

*LINK:Melting Polar Ice Cap Created A Lake On Top Of The World - Forbes*






Thanks to rising average global temperatures, the North Pole is once again home to a lake in the middle of the Arctic ice cap. Just a month ago, the exact same spot was ice. This photograph, taken by the North Pole Environmental Observatory, provides a pretty dramatic picture of the reality of the Arctic ice cap. Slowly but surely over the past decades, the average size of the ice cap has been shrinking. Last summer, Arctic sea ice reached the lowest point ever recorded.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> *LINK:Melting Polar Ice Cap Created A Lake On Top Of The World - Forbes*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing.. Even Forbes got punked on that one eh?  Where exactly is this camera? Hard to tell.. It's been free-drifting for a long time.. Right now it's in fast current about to EXIT the Arctic between Greenland and Prime meridian.. 






[/IMG]

So much wailing --- so little truth.. Not unusual for fast current straits to be completely ice-free towards the end of summer..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

If you're interested in what SCIENCE has to say about that picture.. Take it from the Nat Snow Ice data center.. 



> The Lake at the North Pole, How Bad Is It? | Climate Central
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s << the camera >> moved away from the North Pole region and it will eventually exit Fram Strait,&#8221; said Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo., in an interview. Fram Strait lies between Greenland and Canada, and is one of the main routes for sea ice to get flushed out of the Arctic Ocean.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 27, 2013)

However, water on top of the ice is significant. Bare ice reflects 90% of the sunlight back into space. Of that 10% whose energy is absorbed by the ice, it takes 334 joules of energy to convert one gram of ice at 0 degrees C to one gram of water at 0 degrees C. When the ice is covered with water, 90% of the energy in the sunlight is absorbed, only 10% reflected back to space. It takes 4.18 joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C. So the sunlight that melts one gram of ice to water with no increase in temperature, now raise the temperature of 720 grams of water one degree C. 

When winter approaches, that warm water takes longer to freeze up than it would had the area remained ice covered as it used to. That means in the spring, the ice is much thinner, and melts faster, exposing more water, and resulting in even more energy absorption by the Arctic Ocean.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

What was the argument?  That it's only a litte water?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> What was the argument?  That it's only a litte water?



What u talking about Snidely? You asking about the phoney pix of the North Pole you posted? 

You get that this camera is free-drifting and currently OVER A THOUSAND MILES SOUTH of the North Pole? (need an answer to be sure you're following dude) 

Also that there is likely ice DIRECTLY below that water and you can WALK ON IT? 
(If you carefully to the right side of the photo you can see evidence of this being a "melt pond".. )

And that it is not unusual for high flow currents thru the straits OUT of the Arctic circle to be clear of ice this time of year? 

Any other problems bunky? 

Maybe someone could help me out here. (Since I have little interest in watching ice melt when the rules are so silly)  So you have massive "melt ponds" this time of year. 
Since the "Ice Watch Fanatics" own this thread --- are "melt ponds" counted as ICED or NOT ICED in SIExtent measurements? Does the satellite pierce the few inches of water in the melt ponds?


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> What was the argument?  That it's only a litte water?







No, that as usual, the truth seems to be beyond your ability to present.   What's it like to be a pathological liar?  Do you ever care?  Or is it just a game, and when you get caught you just move on to the next lie till you get caught again?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 30, 2013)

Time series ice-thickness. Looks cool. The main channel of the Northwest Passage may not open this year, as the storms keep piling up thick ice at the west end. There's a group off the Alaskan/Canadian coast now trying to row into the south channel (Amundsen's route), but the weather is not cooperating. High waves from the storm, and thick ice being blown into the coast.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2013)

Arctic shipping quadruples in past year as global warming melts sea ice.
---
The Financial Times reports that, as of Friday, 204 ships had received permits this year to ply the Northern Sea Route, which connects East Asia to Europe via the waters off of Russias northern coast. Last year, just 46 vessels made the trip. Two years ago, the number was four.
---


----------



## gslack (Aug 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Arctic shipping quadruples in past year as global warming melts sea ice.
> ---
> The Financial Times reports that, as of Friday, 204 ships had received permits this year to ply the Northern Sea Route, which connects East Asia to Europe via the waters off of Russias northern coast. Last year, just 46 vessels made the trip. Two years ago, the number was four.
> ---



ROFL, you warmers don't read for comprehension do you..

listen carefully... 204 ships received permits.. That means 204 ships got permits that's it...

last year 46 vessels MADE THE TRIP... 

once more 

*46 vessels MADE THE TRIP...*

in other words we don't know how many got permits that didn't make the trip for whatever reason.. Reasons like; maybe the ice wasn't clear enough? Or perhaps it grew back quicker than expected? Or hell maybe the ice didn't recede like the prediction claimed...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

Russia Moves to Promote Northeast Passage through Arctic Ocean - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Right now, you have to pay the Russians, put a Russian pilot on board and convoy up with an icebreaker. But more ships are signing on. Lack of any piracy in the arctic is a plus.

Oh, the 4 guys in a big rowboat trying to row the northwest passage are giving up halfway. It's not ice that stopped them, it's exhaustion. The never-ending wind and waves were too much, and they spent much of their time on shore waiting for storms to blow over.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

The yellow is the ice extent last year.  The red is what is missing this year.  The green is what has been added THIS YEAR a 66% INCREASE.....


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Russia Moves to Promote Northeast Passage through Arctic Ocean - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> Right now, you have to pay the Russians, put a Russian pilot on board and convoy up with an icebreaker. But more ships are signing on. Lack of any piracy in the arctic is a plus.
> 
> Oh, the 4 guys in a big rowboat trying to row the northwest passage are giving up halfway. It's not ice that stopped them, it's exhaustion. The never-ending wind and waves were too much, and they spent much of their time on shore waiting for storms to blow over.










Oh, you need an ICEBREAKER to make the voyage.....That's kind of funny.  They were able to make the trip back in the late 1800's WITHOUT an icebreaker and with wooden sailing ships.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> The yellow is the ice extent last year.  The red is what is missing this year.  The green is what has been added THIS YEAR a 66% INCREASE.....



Um, yeah, just as predicted by Mann's tree rings


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Oh, you need an ICEBREAKER to make the voyage.....That's kind of funny.  They were able to make the trip back in the late 1800's WITHOUT an icebreaker and with wooden sailing ships.



You're still fibbing about Kara Sea trips being full northeast passages? Give it a rest. You can't mangle reality to that extent and not expect to be called on it.

So, the government of Russia and all the shipping companies of the world ... or a couple of deranged political cultists. Gee, who to believe. Let me think about that.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, you need an ICEBREAKER to make the voyage.....That's kind of funny.  They were able to make the trip back in the late 1800's WITHOUT an icebreaker and with wooden sailing ships.
> ...








Gosh, you're pretty poorly read aren't you?  I was thinking of the Vega expedition actually.  You know the one that transited the entire distance from 1878 to 1880?   That one.

You should read about it.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

So it (the Vega expedition) takes 2 years because it gets frozen in, and you compare that to the current mostly ice-free conditions? Don't hurt yourself with that stretch. I mean, last I checked, two weeks is faster than two years.

But even if it had gotten through in one, that in no way changes the fact that the current low-ice conditions are unprecedented. I await to see what new deflections you'll now bring up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Russia Moves to Promote Northeast Passage through Arctic Ocean - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> ...



*Really? Care to post some links?*


Roald Amundsen - First to Navigate Northwest Passage


Roald Amundsen: Navigates Northwest Passage
Roald Amundsen (1872-1928) of Norway was the first person to successfully navigate the fabled Northwest Passage.

His journey took three years to complete - he and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation.

His little 47 ton fishing boat, Gjøa (pronounced "y-eu-a") was finally able to leave his Arctic base at Gjøahaven (today - Gjoa Haven, Nunavut), and on August 26, 1905 he and his 6-man crew encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west. They were through the Northwest Passage!

Amundsen was fascinated with polar exploration (as a youth, he slept with the windows open during frigid Norwegian winters to condition himself) and he took pride in being referred to as "the last of the Vikings". He was also the first person to reach the South Pole (1911), and one of the first (with Umberto Nobile and Lincoln Ellsworth) to fly over the North Pole in a dirigible (1926


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So it (the Vega expedition) takes 2 years because it gets frozen in, and you compare that to the current mostly ice-free conditions? Don't hurt yourself with that stretch. I mean, last I checked, two weeks is faster than two years.
> 
> But even if it had gotten through in one, that in no way changes the fact that the current low-ice conditions are unprecedented. I await to see what new deflections you'll now bring up.







Mostly free?  With modern steel hulled ships and engines producing 50,000 shaft horsepower and they *STILL* need to use an icebreaker?   You're a certified halfwit aren't you!


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...










What, you didn't read mammy's post?  Didn't check his link?  Here's a passage for you oltrakartrollingorogenicblunderfraudman.


"Still, the eastern part of the sea route remains hazardous, even during the summer months. Weather forecasts are unreliable, and ice and fog command the full attention of crews. The NSRA generally requires ship captains to be accompanied by seasoned Arctic skippers while traversing the eastern section. Furthermore, *many ships still need an icebreaker escort in the summer*. Russia operates six nuclear-powered icebreakers, and a seventh ship is currently being built."

Not all ships require an icebreaker, some have hardened bows so they are able to break their own way...but they are the exception...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Mostly free?



Yep. You could do this crazy thing called "looking at the data". I know, new experiences scare you, but give it a try. Because that shows it almost ice free, just that one spot by Severnaya Zemlya, hence the icebreaker.  

What's also new this year is that, yes, the north pole _did_ melt. Not totally, but for the first time ever, a partial melt. See that green over the north pole? That's never happened before, half of the north pole ice gone. It's not just a melt pond. It's completely unlike a lead temporarily opening up so a sub can poke through, which wouldn't have made a pixel on the this map.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly free?
> ...








Yes, let's look at the data shall we?  Seems that the Arctic has iced up much more rapidly than your experts predicted....color me unsurprised...  And 22 yachts (who's owners listened to said experts) are now stuck in the ice.

"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early. Douglas Pohl tells the story:"  









Sail-World.com : North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught


----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Seems that the Arctic has iced up much more rapidly than your experts predicted....color me unsurprised...



Color me unsurprised that you keep repeating that lie. You know, the "all the experts predicted" lie that you use so much everywhere. But then, it's for the glory of your cult, so the lie is okay, right?

I see you don't want to talk about the northeast passage any longer. Probably for the best. Just go back to your "It's not a new record low this year, so it's all a fraud" line of nonsense.


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Seems that the Arctic has iced up much more rapidly than your experts predicted....color me unsurprised...
> ...








Man, you _really_ are stupid aren't you....  The point, for the intellectually challenged such as yourself, is the yachtsmen wouldn't have made the attempt if they hadn't listened to your experts telling them that they would be A-OK.  Get it?

And for the record, why on Earth would I need to lie?  You guys do it all the time and run and hide when you are invariably caught.  Why bother talking about the NE Passage, it's been around for decades dating back to the Soviet era.  It's the NW passage that has you clowns all hot and bothered and here it is closing on you *TOO DAMNED EARLY*  for you to spew your propaganda... so sad for you!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Would make a good plot for a made-for-TV movie.. Complete with Cannibalism and fighting off hungry Polar Bears... 

Probably would beat "The Day After Tomorrow" in the ratings..


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







Pretty much ANYTHING would beat that turd of a movie...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

Excerpts from the AR5 WGI 2013 Final Draft Report.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf



> It is* very likely* that there will be further shrinking and thinning of Arctic sea ice cover, and decreases
> of northern high-latitude spring time snow cover and near surface permafrost (see glossary) as global
> mean surface temperature rises. For high greenhouse gas emissions such as those corresponding to
> RCP8.5, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean (sea ice extent less than 1 × 106  km2 ) in September is likely before
> ...



Just so we are clear on what really is predicted.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> Seems that the Arctic has iced up much more rapidly than your experts predicted....color me unsurprised...



Yeah, you're going to have to produce something concrete to back up this bs.  Just intuitively, I doubt that there have been any predictions regarding the Arctic icing up. At least from my long view, it seems the thrust of predictions is a steady decline over the long term without any confidence in terms of short term variability.  Short term variability predictions just don't make sense.

I am asking you to prove my intuition wrong here.  It would be great to see actual short term predictions.  That would be fun.

Here is the 2007 prediction



> Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {10.3}





> Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest that* ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming* (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9°C to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 10.7}
> Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {4.6, 10.7}
> Current global model studies project that the *Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.* However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {10.7}



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

So, I don't see this supposed prediction.....color me unsurprised.

Here is a reported expecation from one 



> "I was expecting that this year would be higher than last year," said Walt Meier, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "There is always a tendency to have an uptick after an extreme low; in our satellite data, the Arctic sea ice has never set record low minimums in consecutive years."   This year's rebound from 2012 does not disagree with this downward trend and is not a surprise to scientists.



http://phys.org/news/2013-09-arctic-sea-ice-sixth-lowest.html

So that would be icing up more, not less.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)




----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

Arctic News: The Growing Threat of Catastrophic Storm Surge in the Next 30 Years on a Fast, Global Warming Induced, Sea Level Rise and its Consequences for Coastal Cities and Humanity







For shits and grins, this is the data website

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/

I am, unfortunately, not able to open and plot the actual data.  But, just in case someone wants to bitch "where is the data" or "it's all a lie...."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So the denialists are _still_ refusing to acknowledge the 1991 climate science paper that specifically predicted the increase in Antarctic sea ice? Of course they are. It's what cultists do.
> 
> Do they consider themselves liars? Not really. I think Westwall honestly thinks he's an honest person, as a result of his cult programming. It's part of the cult indoctrination, the cult defining its own members as morally perfect and incapable of lying. Thus, cultists are emotionally unable to process the fact that their cult lied to them. Since, in their eyes, the cult can't lie, that means the bearer of bad news who showed the cult was lying has to be a liar himself. And that would be why poor Westwall goes so unhinged whenever someone shows him how his cult lied.
> 
> And the evidence of the cult's lies? Simple refuse to acknowledge such a thing exists. If the bearer of bad news insists on bringing it up again, switch to endless personal attacks to divert attention.



I have had a recent and rare opportunity to observe chronic liars in action.  In one instance, I shared the exact same experience with one.  On recanting the incident, at a later time, this habitual liar picked and chose from small events that occurred, rearranged and ignored parts, then completely fabricated made a couple of needed ones to fit the pieces into his own narrative.  And, I can assure you, he fully believed the fantasy that he fabricated.  

I have no difficulty believing that Westwall does, in fact, believe his own fabrications as if they really happened.  It is the marvelous thing about the mind, that psychology has shown, that memories can be completely fabricated, reality entirely overwritten.  I have no doubt that Westwall is psychotic.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So the denialists are _still_ refusing to acknowledge the 1991 climate science paper that specifically predicted the increase in Antarctic sea ice? Of course they are. It's what cultists do.
> ...








Yes, you call me all sorts of names and yet can never point to a lie I've ever told....so what does that make you?  More to the point here's what the current state of the ice is...  Doesn't look ANYTHING like the propaganda you posted..


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Like he said, "Westwall honestly thinks he's an honest person,".

You have just proven his point, that you honestly think you are an honest person.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



That Walleyes can post this as proof that nothing important is happening in the cryosphere is proof of the extent of his seperation from reality. Just look at the differance in the anamolys between the Arctic and Anarctic, yet he regards them as equal.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Poor dumb olfraud....where oh where did I say that.  YOUR claims were that the Arctic was in a "death spiral" and that there would be no ice by....well I think you guys' original prediction was this year would be ice free ..was it not?

I am merely pointing out that the "canary in the coal mine", you guys' _other_ favorite bit of tripe, is not panning out like you claimed it would.

Care to address those failed predictions?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 3, 2013)

This *is* a death spiral


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2013)

hahaha. does anyone else notice that the warmers' predictions for both the arctic and the antarctic are both wrong? they are obviously putting the wrong inputs into their models, or are just ignoring ones that should be included. either way they are....wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2013)

Ian, you know better. Yes, the predictions for the Arctic and Anarctic were wrong. For the Arctic, no one predicted the extent of the loss of ice we have seen in the last decade. For the Antarctic, both sea ice and continental ice was predicted to increase. However, do to the wasting of ice shelves and glacial outflow and erosion, the continental ice is decreasing, and the sea ice increase is very small compared to the loss of the ice in the Arctic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Since I never said that the ice would be gone by 2013, that is just another lie from you. I have posted some that said that was a possibility after the 2007 surprise, but the most pessimistic that I have posted is that it possibly could be gone by 2015, and allmost certainly will have an ice free period by 2030. And the ice is in a death spiral. Every graph from every scientific source shows that. We have a very strong positive feedback loop going on there.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 3, 2013)

The only thing wrong with the shrinking sea ice, is that sea ice is actually growing.

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The only thing wrong with the shrinking sea ice, is that sea ice is actually growing.
> 
> And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online



It rains every winter.  It snows in higher elevations.  And every winter, the ice grows.

What part of this don't you understand?

Please check one or more of the statement that applies

I am dumb ______.
I am ignorant _____.
I am crazy ______.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Curiously, this seems to be a common thing this week, the wacknuts making claims to things that never happened.

It is true, I have seen it up close and personal, that people do actually make up things that never occurred and believe them.  It seems to be a behavior that they picked up in childhood.  They get so good at it that they are entirely unaware that they are making things up.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> hahaha. does anyone else notice that the warmers' predictions for both the arctic and the antarctic are both wrong? they are obviously putting the wrong inputs into their models, or are just ignoring ones that should be included. either way they are....wrong.



What prediction?  Quote and link because I've found plenty and it is not what the deniers claim. Curiously, I presented the 2007 predictions and it seems you are wrong.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








So, 2013 is thinner than 1980. That could be part of the reason that volume is less.  Hmm...  Area times thickness equal volume, so it is an indicator, not an exact one, but it would be the first suggestion.






http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/

Check this out..  http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/IceAge&Extent/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg

What is your point?


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing wrong with the shrinking sea ice, is that sea ice is actually growing.
> ...









And the poles are considered DESERT because they are so dry.  So you qualify for points 1 AND 2.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Nothing you posted appears inconsistent with the 2007 predictions.  Indeed, what you post seems to be in complete contradiction to what you say.  Do you need someone to interpret the data for you?  Or can you read a graph?  

I'm really not getting it.  The more and more you present, the strong is the case against what you claim.  You are actually proving yourself wrong.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one shows a decrease in sea ice.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one shows a decrease in the total, a decrease in the arctic, and an increase in the antarctic.  That is exactly what is reported elsewhere and what was predicted.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one shows that the later years, 2008-2011 are lower than the earlier years.  2002 and 2003 are at the high end.  2011 and 2012 are at the low end.  2013 is in the middle, so it bumped up but it is still lower than 2003.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one is meaningless because it spans only two years.  We aren't talking about weather.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one shows an obvious decrease.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one is meaningless because it cherry picks two specific years at a specific month.  It is shown in the graph that shows all the data.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This one cherry picks.  Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.  And, it is otherwise meaningless because is shows only the last two years.  We aren't discussing weather.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

So, in short, Walleyes is nice enough to present the data which supports the predictions and AWG.

Good job.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This one cherry picks.  Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.









Suuuuure it was... And you claim I lie...what a joke you are...

In a report on Monday's NBC Today about declining penguin populations in Antarctica, correspondent Kerry Sanders didn't take long to lay the blame on man-made climate change: "Penguins are most certainly the ambassadors to the bottom of the world....But the ambassadors are also sounding an alarm....ten of the world's 18 penguin species are in trouble....*The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster than ever before."* [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: NBC Alarmism: Could Penguins Be 'Canary in the Coal Mine' of Global Warming? | NewsBusters


One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward. Concluding statement in Mercer (1978)

http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opens...tic_Peninsula_Canary_in_a_coal_mine_OER_4.pdf

Krill reproduction is wholly dependent on Antarctic sea ice conditions. _*Seasonal studies have shown that winters with reduced size and duration of winter sea ice coincide with poor krill reproduction*_. This is because the underside of sea ice is coated with ice-algae which serves as the main food for krill during the winter when phytoplankton is unavailable.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful » Blog Archive » Canary in the Coal Mine: Antarctic Krill



The head of the Wright valley looking across the expanse of Polar Plateau. Taken in 1970. Yoday,_ this glacier has shrunk dramatically as climate change takes its toll_. Photo: Bob McKerrow 
For the last two years, one of the largest international research programmes for 50 years has been focusing on the world's most remote regions - the Antarctic and Arctic. 
IPY was officially launched in Paris on 1 March 2007, and will run until March 2009. 
The International Polar Year (IPY) brings together thousands of scientists, from more than 60 nations, to participate in more than 200 projects. 
And the issue at the top of the agenda is climate change. 
"This is going to raise the profile of the issue of global warming among the international community," said Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientist at the opening. 
"We know that what is happening to ice on the planet is a very clear indication of what is going to happen to the rest of us. 
The first IPY, held in 1882-83, saw the world's first co-ordinated international expeditions to the polar regions. 



And I can go on and on and on you lying sack of poo.  You asshats didn't change your tune till it became obvious the Antarctic wasn't going to support your little tall tale.

And you have the brass to call me the liar?  What an asshole you are...


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.



It wasn't "predicted" until it became obvious that the ice sheet in Antarctica was increasing, not decreasing:

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice

Antarctic ice shelves 'tearing apart', says study

Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below


Click on the NASA link.  That's a real hoot.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 4, 2013)

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves.  The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert.  The same is true at the North Pole.  However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness.  Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast.  It was never unexpected.  It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean.  There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface.  Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o   Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent.  Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet.  This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface. 
o   As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o  Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow.  It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.  
o  The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o  The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades.  This is driving sea level rise.  Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.
> 
> Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves.  The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert.  The same is true at the North Pole.  However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness.  Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast.  It was never unexpected.  It was never a surprise.
> 
> ...



The only problem with your new excuse is that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not shrinking.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.
> ...



Do you realize that simply means that ice is flowing from the land to the sea at an increased rate?  All that extra ice shelf  came from the ice sheet ashore.  

The ice sheet is not growing in extent  - it can not - it already occupies the entire continent.  If it expands - as it is - it pushes itself off land and on to the surrounding oceans and raises the world's sea level.

And, by the way, I am not making excuses for anything.  I have nothing for which to make an excuse.  You, on the other hand...


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, you know better. Yes, the predictions for the Arctic and Anarctic were wrong. For the Arctic, no one predicted the extent of the loss of ice we have seen in the last decade. For the Antarctic, both sea ice and continental ice was predicted to increase. However, do to the wasting of ice shelves and glacial outflow and erosion, the continental ice is decreasing, and the sea ice increase is very small compared to the loss of the ice in the Arctic.





seems like your memory is pretty selective. it wasnt that long ago that you were preaching about how much ice loss there was in both the ice caps and ice shelves of Antarctica. dont you remember your pretty animation of ice flow that was going to add millimeters of SLR per year? and rapidly escalate to at least a meter by 2100? now you are saying the increase was predicted. 

pretty damn fishy, if you ask me.

edit- I misunderstood your comment. so you think Antarctic ice is decreasing? you are gullible. claims of massive ice loss have shrunk every year til now even diehard warmers like Zwally have admitted that the overall picture is increased ice mass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 4, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yeah, right.  So if the ice sheet shrinks in size, it's proof of global warming.  If it expands in size, it's proof of global warming.

When warmist cult members spout obvious idiocies like that, they demonstrate what total nutburgers they are.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, right.  So if the ice sheet shrinks in size, it's proof of global warming.  If it expands in size, it's proof of global warming.



You're a 'tard for thinking that.



> When warmist cult members spout obvious idiocies like that, they demonstrate what total nutburgers they are.



But no one on the rational side said such a thing. You're just raving.

Oh, the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass. Probably. Look it up. One scientist (Zwally) disagrees, but his is the minority opinion. But since he kind of agrees with them, he's the only scientist denialists will cite. Except when he disagrees with them everywhere else, at which point he turns back into a dirty warmer.

Antarctic ice mass is projected to probably grow in the future, due to increased precipitation, but the growth there will not override the melt elsewhere and the thermal expansion of seawater, so oceans will keep rising.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This one cherry picks.  Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.
> ...



And, as usual, you don't address what was said, that the presented graph is cherry picking.  It captures two years, 2012 and 2013. That would be weather, not climate.

And, I am not calling you a liar, I am calling you a fucking moron. As usual, you simply can't focus on the actual details or reality.  I specifically said in a previous post that you actually believe the bullshit that you present.  I didn't call you a liar, I called you psychotic .  Do you see how stupid you are?  You can't even recall the actual insult.

Personally, I have had no information regarding the Antarctica and was a surprised as any that it was expected to increase in extent.

I see that, while I was writing this, others have said the same thing.  The short of it is you don't seem to get the difference between net and gross, ice volume and ice extent, sea ice vs land ice, etc.

The difficulty you are having is an inability to distinguish between specific individuals, organizations, events, and other details from generalities.  Just as well, you can't seem to distinguish between a specific glacier and the entire continent.  This leads you to get all distracted by one detail or another, completely losing the direction of the initial concept. 

To help, I present your bolded statements "The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster than ever before." "this glacier has shrunk dramatically as climate change takes its toll" and " Seasonal studies have shown that winters with reduced size and duration of winter sea ice"

The first one is a bit ambiguous because it really doesn't say what "ice that dominates the landscape" is?  Is that glaciers?  Sea ice?  Volume?  There is no data that is labeled "ice that dominates the landscape".  There is data called "Ice volume" and "sea ice extent".

Even then, there is a difference between net and gross.  If the sea ice is melting and calving while the volume is being added to by precipitation, then the "ice that dominates the landscape" can certainly melt "faster than ever before" while the volume is increasing.

The second one is pretty obvious in terms of your error.  "this glacier has shrunk dramatically" refers to a specific glacier.  It doesn't refer to the entire continent.  

But, as of yesterday, I found no statements to indicate that the IPCC expected it to increase.

The AR5 says "There is low confidence in projected near-term decreases in the Antarctic sea ice extent and volume."

AR4 gives us two statements



> *Sea ice is projected to shrink* in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the *latter part of the 21st century*. {10.3}





> "Current global model studies project that the*Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.* However, *net loss of ice mass* could occur *if* dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.



So, we see that, in fact, contrary to your small minded perception, the IPCC expected the Antarctic to increase in volume while simultaneously decreasing in sea ice extent.

You will notice that the specific details are;  "too cold for widespread surface melting" and "gain in mass due to increased snowfall".  These are general statements regarding the net effect on the entire southern ice mass.  Nothing about that is contradictory to "breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula" or "The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster ".    If increased snowfall is resulting in a gain of mass, the entire system can have a net increase while simultaneously having melting and breakup of ice shelves.

The Antarctic is, after all, a huge glacier on top of a continent.  There is both land ice and sea ice.  These have both extent and volume. The ice flows from higher elevations to lower elevations and it is pretty easy to grasp that this flow is outward to the ocean.  As precipitation deposits new snow on the ice mass, it flows outward to the ocean.

While the land mass gains ice due to snowfall, the ice flows towards the sea.  The surface doesn't melt.  Rather, the ice flow hits a warmer ocean and then calves off.

I'm just carefully reading what they have published and putting it into other words.  It is fairly simple except you have to have some mental control over the connection between the general idea and the specific details. If you read "this glacier has shrunk dramatically" and then assume that generalizes to "all ice", you are obviously going to get it wrong.

To help you clarify things, the statement "latter part of the 21st century" means the latter part of the decades, 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s, 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s 2090s.  It is currently 2013, which is the beginning of the 21st century.  2070 would be more like the latter part.

I see nothing in your presentation except an inability to grasp the difference between a trend and a specific year, between climate and weather, between general and specific.

Your just upset because the concept of "net" vs "gross", "volume" vs "extent", "surface" vs "mass" are all too complicated for you.

You are upset because you have personally defined language in accordance to what you want it to be and other people don't follow your conventions.  You job is to figure out what people are talking about.  It's not your job to define language. It isn't anyone else's problem if the language is to complicated for you.

I can't help but be reminded of SSaDhD with his inability to grasp the difference between net and gross in heat flow.

And the bottom line is that you are just a fucking idiot without the capacity for intelligent thought.  So when you don't understand something, due to your own stupidity, your knee jerk reaction is to conclude "oh, they are lying".  How convenient for you.  You don't have to learn that way.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.
> ...



And where is the evidence that it was predicted to be smaller?  As of 2007, the prediction was an increase in volume due to increased snowfall with melting of sea ice.

The third assessment report reads "Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation."

That would be 2001.  So 2001, 2007 and now 2013 say the same thing.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.
> ...



The only problem is that you are completely oblivious to the fact that both the IPCC and Abraham said that the growth was expected.  You are the only one that thought it would shrink.

So, have you figured out photosynthesis yet?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

Controversial Climate Change Debate: Is Earth's Ice Growing or Shrinking?

Sea ice is shrinking at the northern pole, but at the southern pole it is actually increasing, a point often used in the climate debate by those on the opposing side.

 Because of the many sources for surface ice across the globe, reports and debates on the growth or loss of ice can often be misleading. What may be true for ice in one particular location is not always indicative of the state of global ice as a whole, nor is an individual example of loss or growth able to provide any substantial information on the topic of climate change, for either side of the debate.

The University of Washington's Hannah Hickey explained that the thickness of the ice is also a factor. Remarkably strong Antarctic winds push ice together to create a thick, rigid quality to the ice. Despite rising water temperatures, this ice is able to reform together in this way and, because of its structure, will also last longer.






Meanwhile, though the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, land ice is consistently decreasing. This has led to confusion in the climate change or sea ice loss debates, as some will cite an increase in Antarctic ice to support their claims and others will cite its losses.

Dr. Chris Forest, an associate professor of climate dynamics with Penn State University, emphasized to AccuWeather.com that climate trends are about the long term.
"Sea ice has certainly been in decline since the observations by satellites, and if you look at the records of sea ice over the past 10 years, sea ice grew with respect to the previous year but is still much lower than it was 20 years ago. So the sea ice area is a great example of how you have to look at long-term trends. You can't look at just year-to-year variability; you have to look at long-term changes in the climate, long-term changes in the sea ice as a result.

Damn you, you complicated physics and climate......Damn you....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

The great 2013 Arctic ice "death spiral" just surpassed the amount of ice present in 2005.  Want to bet that the amount of ice present is even greater this time next year?

You people are victims of a hoax.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 7, 2013)

Or with a little more information thrown in...  from NSIDC.org

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES

Contrasting weather conditions were a significant factor in this year&#8217;s higher sea ice extent and lower Greenland Ice Sheet melt intensity, compared to last year. This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer. It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland.

While 2012 and 2013 extents were similar through May, weather patterns from June to August helped retain more ice. Last summer was marked by lower than average pressure over the Eurasian side of the Arctic and higher than average pressure over Greenland. This resulted in a dipole-like wind pattern that favored ice transport across the ocean and the import of heat from southern latitudes along the Eurasian side of the Arctic. In contrast, this summer was characterized by unusually low pressure over much of the Arctic Ocean, which limited heat import from the south and brought more extensive cloud cover, keeping temperatures lower. In addition, the winds associated with the low pressure caused the ice cover to spread out and cover a larger area.

















Figure 5. These images from March 2013 (top) and September 2013 (bottom) show the changes in multiyear ice between this year&#8217;s sea ice maximum and minimum extents. In contrast to 2012, the record low extent year, multiyear ice tended to stay put, rather than being circulated around, which can expose it to warmer currents and winds that increase melt. Much of the Arctic ice cover now consists of first-year ice (shown in purple), which tends to melt rapidly in summer&#8217;s warmth.


AVERAGE ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT FOR SEPTEMBER
TREND, IN % PER DECADE (RELATIVE TO 1981-2010 AVG.)

 YEAR      (Km^2)e6	 (Mi^2)  Pct chng from 81-10 AVG
2007	          4.30	  1.66	      -11.0
2008	          4.73	  1.83	      -11.0
2009	          5.36	  2.08	      -12.0
2010	          4.90	  1.90	      -12.4
2011	          4.63	  1.79	      -12.0
2012	          3.63	  1.40	      -14.0
2013	          5.35	  2.07	      -13.7*
1979 to 2000 average
          	  7.04	  2.72	
1981 to 2010 average
	          6.52	  2.52	

* Very impressive... really... VERY impressive


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Or with a little more information thrown in...  from NSIDC.org
> 
> WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES
> 
> ...



The truth doesn't bear much resemblance to your alarmist propaganda.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Or with a little more information thrown in...  from NSIDC.org
> ...



Oh wow. Still intent on proving you cannot read a graph? The upper graph, global sea ice, shows a strong downward trend. The middle graph, arctic sea ice, shows a strong downward trend. The lower graph, antarctic sea ice, show a very weak upward trend, hardly discernable on that scale. 

You denialists are your own worst enemy. Post nonsense that shows you cannot even interpret simple data.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh wow. Still intent on proving you cannot read a graph? The upper graph, global sea ice, shows a strong downward trend. The middle graph, arctic sea ice, shows a strong downward trend. The lower graph, antarctic sea ice, show a very weak upward trend, hardly discernable on that scale.
> 
> You denialists are your own worst enemy. Post nonsense that shows you cannot even interpret simple data.



Strong?  I suggest that you look up the meaning of the word.  There is nothing "strong about the trend.  You talk like a chicken little.....seeing a falling sky when the only thing falling is acorns.  It is the idiotic alarmist language that has made you laughing stock....and why the wheels are falling off your crazy train.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Strong downward?  No, I think not.  In fact the sea ice globally is the same extent (or very near to it) as back in 1990.  You keep telling us the end is nigh and lo and behold, just like the sandwhich board town idiot, you are wrong every time.  

Maybe that's why you guys no longer put dates on anything.  It's real easy to say "it's going to happen in the future!"   The future is a long time from now.....maybe even centuries.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Dude, I went over everyone of your graphs previously and properly interpreted them for you.  They demonstrate everything that the IPCC has presented.

It is your own posts, and the ignorance presented, that has convinced me that AWG is correct.

It is simply a matter of the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is that AWG is false.   You have failed miserably to demonstrate it false, indeed, you have shown it to be true.

Your pretend ignorance is a personal problem.  You should work on that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That's the IPCC report.  The rest of your cult was screaming "the sky is falling" as I demponstrated above.  The IPCC can afford to look as obviously looney as the majority of the AGW cult does.  They present whatever they think they can get away with without destroying their scientific credibility.  They leave it up to the magicians of the cult to run around screaming like Chicke Little.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is no "cult".  There are no black helicopters following you.  The NSA and CIA is not beaming microwaves into your room at night.

Last I looked, the IPCC is the central world organization convened for the purpose of centralizing and presenting the climate science.  The IPCC hasn't screamed "the sky is falling".

If, in fact, NASA says something opposite to the IPCC, then your premise is complete bullshit because it demonstrates that there is no cult where everyone is in lock step.

If, in fact, NASA says the same thing as the IPCC, then your premise is complete bullshit because it demonstrates that no one is screaming "the sky is falling."

However you slice it, your full of crap.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dude, I went over everyone of your graphs previously and properly interpreted them for you.  They demonstrate everything that the IPCC has presented.



Idiot.  Graphs need no "interpretation".  They show what they show.  your graphs are hysterical alarmist propaganda that bear no resemblance to the truth.  Its tendency to interpret rather than accept facts as they are is a large part of what is wrong with climate science.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, I went over every one of your graphs previously and properly interpreted them for you.  They demonstrate everything that the IPCC has presented.
> ...



Dude, of course graphs need interpretation.  Just simple thing, like "up" and "down", the stuff you can't seem to understand.  Then there is understanding what scaling is.  Oh, and way beyond your comprehension, confidence intervals.



(Actually, I believe Walleyed posted them, the same ones.)


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









You couldn't interpret the stain on your toilet paper so don't even begin to try and lecture me you ignorant twerp.  The null hypothesis is WHAT YOU HAVE TO CONTEST ASSHAT!  You nave to prove that what is occurring is NOT NATURAL. 

YOU have made extraordinary claims!  It's YOU that have to prove them, that means it's YOU that has to contest the NULL HYPOTHESIS.  That's how science works you anti science denier!


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> You couldn't interpret the stain on your toilet paper so don't even begin to try and lecture me you ignorant twerp.  The null hypothesis is WHAT YOU HAVE TO CONTEST ASSHAT!  You nave to prove that what is occurring is NOT NATURAL.
> 
> YOU have made extraordinary claims!  It's YOU that have to prove them, that means it's YOU that has to contest the NULL HYPOTHESIS.  That's how science works you anti science denier!



My dog could lecture you WeeBall.  

The Null Hypothesis in this argument would contend that there was no relationship between human CO2 emissions and global warming - that AGW is false.  So.. what has your opponent said?



			
				IfItzMe said:
			
		

> It is simply a matter of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that AWG is false. You have failed miserably to demonstrate it false, indeed, you have shown it to be true.



He is correct.

You are wrong.

It's you, WestwardHo, that has loudly pronounced your ignorance.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The truth doesn't bear much resemblance to your alarmist propaganda.



Your plot was created by the same people from the same data archives as were mine.  Please explain how mine can be alarmist propaganda while yours is the "truth".


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The truth doesn't bear much resemblance to your alarmist propaganda.
> ...



If you can't look at the two and see why one is alarmist and the other is not, then you are even more stupid than I though you were....a thing I wouldn't have thought possible.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...










Ole abe is a clone of PmsMZ and ifitzme, so why would it be any smarter?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I seem to be more proficient at reading than you.  Hmm... let's see:

My plot: "NSIDC"

Your plot: "NSIDC"

Ooooo, that IS a tough one!

************************

Hey Westy, any comment on the AGW Null Hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I seem to be more proficient at reading than you.  Hmm... let's see:
> 
> My plot: "NSIDC"
> 
> ...



So you can't see why one is alarmist propaganda and the other is not?  Wow, you are even more stupid than I thought.  Congratulations.  I am not easily surprised but you have done it.  I had, what I thought was the lowest opinion of your intelligence and you have slid right under that bar like a limbo king.

Again....congratulations....I guess.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2013)

Egad, the dumb fucks cannot tell the differance in scale!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2013)

Now use the slider bar at the bottom and run this from 1979 to present. Notice that prior to 1996 the line is mostly above the zero line, with only an occasional dip to -1. From 1996 to 2002, it is about centered on the zero line. From 2002 on, it is mostly below the zero line, with dips down to -2.5. A very definate downward trend.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Now use the slider bar at the bottom and run this from 1979 to present. Notice that prior to 1996 the line is mostly above the zero line, with only an occasional dip to -1. From 1996 to 2002, it is about centered on the zero line. From 2002 on, it is mostly below the zero line, with dips down to -2.5. A very definate downward trend.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



So where are these imaginary "wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend" you keep telling us about


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Egad, the dumb fucks cannot tell the differance in scale!



I see that you can't tell the difference between alarmist tactics and simple scientific reporting of the facts either.  Not surprising in the least.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now use the slider bar at the bottom and run this from 1979 to present. Notice that prior to 1996 the line is mostly above the zero line, with only an occasional dip to -1. From 1996 to 2002, it is about centered on the zero line. From 2002 on, it is mostly below the zero line, with dips down to -2.5. A very definate downward trend.
> ...



"wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend"?  What is it that you think you are talking about?  "wider and wider swings" of what?  The swing set in your backyard?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Ask rocks, he is the one preaching about them all the time.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

Scientists zero in on Arctic, hemisphere-wide climate swings

 Arctic Oscillation explains the warming observed in the Arctic better than anything else

some studies indicating that the recent trend in the Arctic Oscillation results partly from human activities that generate greenhouse gases and sulfate particles, and deplete stratospheric ozone.

Thus climate modelers have redoubled their efforts to determine the physics behind the patterns of change. Although their models portray realistic day-to-day and month-to-month variations in the Arctic Oscillation, they fail to capture the magnitude of the longer term trend in the Arctic Oscillation that was observed from 1970 to 2000. While paleoclimatologists studying the climate record of the past 1,000 years have not reached a consensus on the importance of the Arctic Oscillation pattern over this longer period, some surprising findings indicate that past Arctic warmings tended to coincide with low-frequency El Nino-Southern Oscillation events in the tropical Pacific. 

Arctic oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

New satellite data measures Arctic sea ice volume at record low

"Latest observations on Arctic sea ice from the European Space Agencys (ESA) Cryosat mission, presented at a symposium in Edinburgh, Scotland, last week, reveal a new record low volume of sea ice in the northern polar region."

"the latest measurements on Arctic sea ice volumes reinforce historical data on Arctic sea ice melt"

Presenting figures at the Living Planet Symposium in Edinburgh last week, Andrew Shepherd, Professor of Earth Observation at the School of Earth and the Environment at Leeds University, UK told delegates,
CryoSat continues to provide clear evidence of diminishing Arctic sea ice.

Professor Shepherd continued,
From the satellites measurements we can see that some parts of the ice pack ice have thinned more rapidly than others, but there has been a decrease in the volume of winter and summer ice over the past three years.

The professor added,
The volume of the sea ice at the end of last winter was less than 15,000 cubic kilometers, which is lower than any other year going into summer and indicates less winter growth than usual.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earths polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methodsespecially in Greenland and West Antarcticaand that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by 142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, 65 ± 26, and 20 ± 14 gigatonnes year&#8722;1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year&#8722;1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

The summary of the related article

GLACIOLOGY

Experts Agree Global Warming Is Melting the World Rapidly

Richard A. Kerr

Forty-seven glaciologists have arrived at a community consensus over all the data on what the past century's warming has done to the great ice sheets: a current annual loss of 344 billion tons of glacial ice, accounting for 20% of current sea level rise. Greenland's share&#8212;about 263 billion tons&#8212;is roughly what most researchers expected, but Antarctica's represents the first agreement on a rate that had ranged from a far larger loss to an actual gain. The new analysis, published on page 1183 of this week's issue of Science, also makes it clear that losses from Greenland and West Antarctica have been accelerating, showing that some ice sheets are disconcertingly sensitive to warming.

Experts Agree Global Warming Is Melting the World Rapidly


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> New satellite data measures Arctic sea ice volume at record low
> 
> "Latest observations on Arctic sea ice from the European Space Agencys (ESA) Cryosat mission, presented at a symposium in Edinburgh, Scotland, last week, reveal a new record low volume of sea ice in the northern polar region."
> 
> ...














This is what "record low" Arctic sea ice looks like huh?  And you guys wonder why you're not taken seriously anymore...


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

The man said *"volume"*.  You have presented only extents data.  Volume, of course, is the more significant parameter.  Perhaps it is this sort of thing that has prevented anyone with a basic science education from taking you seriously.

There.  I have returned the insult you provided.  It makes me feel weak.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The man said *"volume"*.  You have presented only extents data.  Volume, of course, is the more significant parameter.  Perhaps it is this sort of thing that has prevented anyone with a basic science education from taking you seriously.
> 
> There.  I have returned the insult you provided.  It makes me feel weak.








Observations on the ground are somewhat different though...........  Which is why you should always consult more than ONE source, as anyone with even a passing science education will tell you...

Multi year ice has suffered due to harsh winds driving the multi year ice out to where it could be broken up.  Not this year...

"In recent summers, there has been considerable transport of older ice into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where it has been broken up and exposed to a warm ocean and high air temperatures. This has been a major factor in the loss of multiyear ice over the last decade. This year was notably different. Because this years wind pattern was different than 2012, the multiyear ice largely remained in a compact area along the Canadian Archipelago and did not circulate into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The cooler conditions this summer also helped preserve more of the first-year ice through the summer."



Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Are you suggesting that refutes the observation that volume, as measured by the Cryosat satellite, has continued to decrease?


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Are you suggesting that refutes the observation that volume, as measured by the Cryosat satellite, has continued to decrease?








Volume is a measurement that is very difficult to obtain from space.  They have tried to use the GRACE satellite but the results have been less than stellar as the peer reviewed paper shows.  The only volumetric data that is robust enough to be used is actual field data and that is pretty much non-existent.  What _does _exist shows that multi year ice over 4 years old is at its highest level in a few years.


"The two researchers report that the mean ocean mass trends they calculated "vary quite dramatically depending on which GRACE product is used, which adjustments are applied, and how the data are processed." More specifically, they state that "the PGR adjustment ranges from 1 to 2 mm/year, the geocenter adjustment may have biases on the order of 0.2 mm/year, and the atmospheric mass correction may have errors of up to 0.1 mm/year," while "differences between GRACE data centers are quite large, up to 1 mm/year, and differences due to variations in the processing may be up to 0.5 mm/year."




CO2 Science


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that refutes the observation that volume, as measured by the Cryosat satellite, has continued to decrease?
> ...



I suggest that the Cryosat ice volume data is quite robust and has significantly more precision than the data coming from GRACE.  Of course, GRACE can be used over land where Cryosat is useless, but I suggest you review the following three sites.

BBC News - Esa's Cryosat mission observes continuing Arctic winter ice decline

NASA Measures Melting Land Ice Volume - GIM Internationalnasa_measures_melting_land_ice_volume.html

GRACE-derived ice-mass variations over Greenland by accounting for leakage effects | CU Sea Level Research Group

I also fail to see in your quoted text where it says "multi year ice over 4 years old is at its highest level in a few years."


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








The Cryosat link is useful, but the other two are to GRACE which has already been shown to be useless.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Au contraire (or however you spell it).  I think the GRACE satellite has real value for land-based ice masses.  At least it's better than nothing.  

But in any case, I'm glad to hear you approve of the Cryosat data.  It shows that Arctic ice volume is continuing to decline.  

Do you have a link for the 4-year-old-ice-highest-in-several-years comment?  It's okay if you don't.  I was just wondering.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








The papers say otherwise on the GRACE data for ice volume.  Cryosat is a very good beginning but I am concerned how they run the data.  I have to find the four year thickness link for you.  Look for it in a day or two and if I don't post it remind me.

EDIT: found it!..........







http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/10/a-better-year-for-the-cryosphere/


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> The papers say otherwise on the GRACE data for ice volume.  Cryosat is a very good beginning but I am concerned how they run the data.  I have to find the four year thickness link for you.  Look for it in a day or two and if I don't post it remind me.
> 
> EDIT: found it!..........
> 
> ...



Here is your original statement: "What does exist shows that multi year ice over 4 years old is at its highest level in a few years."

Your graphic shows some ice 4 years and older, but it says nothing in support of your statement.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The papers say otherwise on the GRACE data for ice volume.  Cryosat is a very good beginning but I am concerned how they run the data.  I have to find the four year thickness link for you.  Look for it in a day or two and if I don't post it remind me.
> ...







I suggest you read the link and pay special attention to the section on multi year ice.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

The pattern of ice thickness for the summer of 2013 is similar to what has been seen in recent years. According to data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 radar altimeter, the spring melt season started with an Arctic ice cover thinner than in any recent year. This corroborates thickness information inferred from a calculation of ice age that showed first-year ice, which is thinner and more vulnerable to melt, over a significant part of the Arctic Ocean as the melt season started (see our earlier post). Older, thicker ice remained in a region roughly between the North Pole and the Canadian Archipelago and the Greenland coast.

In recent summers, there has been considerable transport of older ice into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where it has been broken up and exposed to a warm ocean and high air temperatures. This has been a major factor in the loss of multiyear ice over the last decade. This year was notably different. Because this year&#8217;s wind pattern was different than 2012, the multiyear ice largely remained in a compact area along the Canadian Archipelago and did not circulate into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The cooler conditions this summer also helped preserve more of the first-year ice through the summer.

The first-year ice that survived the summer, now defined as second-year ice, will thicken through autumn and winter. H*owever, it would take several more cool years in a row to build the ice cover back to the state it was in during the 1980s*, which consisted of a larger proportion of thicker, multiyear ice that was more resistant to melt. While ice in the Arctic will thicken through this autumn and winter, winds may also transport some of the thicker ice out of the Arctic Ocean and into the North Atlantic.
******************************************************
Sorry Man, I still don't see it.


----------



## IanC (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The pattern of ice thickness for the summer of 2013 is similar to what has been seen in recent years. According to data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 radar altimeter, the spring melt season started with an Arctic ice cover thinner than in any recent year. This corroborates thickness information inferred from a calculation of ice age that showed first-year ice, which is thinner and more vulnerable to melt, over a significant part of the Arctic Ocean as the melt season started (see our earlier post). Older, thicker ice remained in a region roughly between the North Pole and the Canadian Archipelago and the Greenland coast.
> 
> In recent summers, there has been considerable transport of older ice into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where it has been broken up and exposed to a warm ocean and high air temperatures. This has been a major factor in the loss of multiyear ice over the last decade. This year was notably different. Because this years wind pattern was different than 2012, the multiyear ice largely remained in a compact area along the Canadian Archipelago and did not circulate into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The cooler conditions this summer also helped preserve more of the first-year ice through the summer.
> 
> ...






I am always amazed at the contortions that people go to, just so that they don't have to see other points of view. the example of sea ice extent/volume/age is similar to the case of global temperatures. any single year cannot be taken by itself but must be see in context with the year(s) before it.

until recently when 'the pause' was acknowledged, many alarmists like Old Rocks and much of the media were stating that warming was not only continuing but rapidly accelerating. nonsense of course but when I pointed out that they were confusing 'warm' with 'warming', they would simply say that ,"the ten warmest years on record have happened in the last fifteen years, blah, blah, blah". the record 1998 El Nino caused a step change, it reset the thermostat to a higher level. there has only been natural variation around the new setting. it would involve major cooling to bring the global temp back down to older average temps.

sea ice extent had the same '1998 El Nino type moment' in 2007 when storms and conditions managed to blow most of the ice out of the Arctic. if you lose most of the 5 yr ice in a particular year, you cannot get it back for at least 5 yrs! 2012 also had storms and conditions that blew much of the ice out into warmer waters. ice formation is a function of present conditions. total ice and age of ice is a function of past conditions. the air flow patterns and the occurence of particular types of storms are far more important to the summer survival of ice than the surface air temp or even the ocean water temp.


when it comes down to CO2 impact on polar temperatures, the theories are incorrect. the south pole should have the biggest temp spike because CO2 influence is bigger at lower temperatures but Antartica is showing no warming except in the seismically active penninsula and western area which is also impacted by slightly warmer ocean currents. for every piece of evidence that seems to support CO2 theory there are at least as many pieces of counter evidence that are being ignored.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

IanC said:


> I am always amazed at the contortions that people go to, just so that they don't have to see other points of view. the example of sea ice extent/volume/age is similar to the case of global temperatures. any single year cannot be taken by itself but must be see in context with the year(s) before it.



And to whose contortions do you refer?  A report from scientists working with data from the Cryosat satellite indicated that unlike Arctic extents which have experienced a minor rebound (a little less negative, so to speak), the total volume of Arctic ice has continued to decline.  Westwall posted extents data and made the claim that NSIDC had reported the ice volume was at its highest level in years.  I saw no such statement in the material he posted and he has been unable to find such a comment from any authority as of this writing.

The 'denialists' here and elsewhere have been very heartened by the hiatus in rising atmospheric temperatures.  That increased warming in the ocean compensates for that change and that above and beyond it all, the ToA imbalance HAS NOT CHANGED, makes all this hoopla more than a little crumbly in the basement.



IanC said:


> until recently when 'the pause' was acknowledged, many alarmists like Old Rocks and much of the media were stating that warming was not only continuing but rapidly accelerating. nonsense of course but when I pointed out that they were confusing 'warm' with 'warming', they would simply say that ,"the ten warmest years on record have happened in the last fifteen years, blah, blah, blah". the record 1998 El Nino caused a step change, it reset the thermostat to a higher level. there has only been natural variation around the new setting. it would involve major cooling to bring the global temp back down to older average temps.



Air temperatures were climbing rapidly before the 98 El Nino.  If you believe it has stopped the Earth's accumulation of thermal energy, could you explain how?



IanC said:


> sea ice extent had the same '1998 El Nino type moment' in 2007 when storms and conditions managed to blow most of the ice out of the Arctic. if you lose most of the 5 yr ice in a particular year, you cannot get it back for at least 5 yrs! 2012 also had storms and conditions that blew much of the ice out into warmer waters. ice formation is a function of present conditions. total ice and age of ice is a function of past conditions. the air flow patterns and the occurence of particular types of storms are far more important to the summer survival of ice than the surface air temp or even the ocean water temp.



The multi-year ice of all levels had been disappearing at least since the satellite record began.  It was not all lost in some catastrophic year of bad weather.  

I may be slow here, but it just occurred to me that future parents will have a problem maintaining that Santa keeps his workshop at the North Pole when the whole place goes all wat-ry every summer.  Hmm.... have to think about that.

The hiatus has been ongoing for 15 years.  If warming has actually stopped, there's been plenty of opportunity for a rebound in ice extent and volume.  The problem, however, is that warm water has a far greater effect on ice melt than does warm air.  The shunt of solar energy into the oceans lain on top of the increased direct solar heating from loss of albedo, has provided plenty of warmer water to facilitate continued melting.



IanC said:


> when it comes down to CO2 impact on polar temperatures, the theories are incorrect.



Ahh... I guess we should have known.



IanC said:


> the south pole should have the biggest temp spike because CO2 influence is bigger at lower temperatures but Antartica is showing no warming except in the seismically active penninsula and western area which is also impacted by slightly warmer ocean currents. for every piece of evidence that seems to support CO2 theory there are at least as many pieces of counter evidence that are being ignored.



You realize you are attempting to counter a number of theories dating back to the beginning of AGW-driven climate modeling.  Increased snowfall in East Antarctica has been predicted by virtually every global warming model ever made.  Both the growth of sea ice and the dramatically increased loss of land ice from Western Antarctica are, IMHO, due to _losses_ of sea ice that uncorked the glacial flow of the ice sheet.  The ice, at a dramatically accelerated rate, is sliding off the continent and into the ocean where it forms new shelf.  Unfortunately, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than any other piece of water on the planet and continues to warm.  In the long run this will lead to increased melt and break up of the ice shelf.  But, for now, increased precipitation (the same precip causing all that build up ashore) creates a lower density layer at the surface, slowing the normal (max rho @ 4C) overturn and enabling increased amounts of freezing.

The ozone hole also impacts atmospheric processes allowing increased cooling in the stratosphere.  It also alters the wind patterns leading to a rotation which tends to spread the ice, increasing area and opening polynyas subject to more freezing.

The system is complex.  Unwarranted simplification will not move us towards a true picture.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 13, 2013)

So, what is it about the Antarctic that results in a greater balance of snowfall as compared to the Arctic?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

How about ozone hole causes stratospheric cooling which causes increased winds which bring water vapor from the warm Southern Ocean inland to fall as the fluffy white stuff.  

Or maybe it's because it at the bottom and everything just tends to flow downhill.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 14, 2013)

Yeah, it's at the bottom...

The Antarctic land mass is one.  The lesser land masses between the Antarctic and the equator struck me as another.  There Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by ocean while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land mass. 

It would seem that the Antarctic has more potential for percipitation from all that ocean nearer the equator than the Arctic has being surrounded by warmer land masses.  

And, without having gone back to look at it, I suspect that the difference in ocean currents is a factor.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yeah, it's at the bottom...
> 
> The Antarctic land mass is one.  The lesser land masses between the Antarctic and the equator struck me as another.  There Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by ocean while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land mass.
> 
> ...



I heard Samuel Clemens sojourned to the very far south once upon a time and is reported to have observed that "The coldest winter I've ever spent was a summer in Antarctica"

;-)

Note: just looked this up and it turns out that Twain never gave that line about cold San Francisco summers.


Actually, I was originally intending to tie that into rainy areas of the world such as San Francisco and points north and the equivalent regions of northern Europe, but I got lost.  

So... what is this thread supposed to be about?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 8, 2013)

This year was quite unexpected. I'd guess after a negative anomaly we're going to get a positive one


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 8, 2013)

Matthew said:


> This year was quite unexpected. I'd guess after a negative anomaly we're going to get a positive one



You can see that in the record.  Every record low is followed by a large rebound.  

Of course the real thing to watch, as I know you know, is the ice volume or mass.  That has continued to decline at a wicked rate and is much lower than the extents (thinner and thinner every year) might lead you to think.

Doesn't exactly firm up that positive extents record, does it.  It think we're looking at a growing expanse of ice that wouldn't hold up a sea bird.







Down 3,200 cubic kilometers every decade.  For the current extent of rougly 10 million kilometers for the entire Arctic, that's a loss of 32 cm (just over a foot) of ice/decade.  Yeah, tell the polar bears not to worry.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 8, 2013)

I think the extra moisture after each record low probably responable.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 24, 2013)

Looks like ice extents might just be leaving the lower 2 stddevs


----------



## Kosh (Dec 24, 2013)

CO2 does NOT drive climate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 24, 2013)

Kosh prove it....


The entire reason this season SUCKED was because there wasn't any high pressure. Kind of like 2008.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 24, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Kosh prove it....
> 
> 
> The entire reason this season SUCKED was because there wasn't any high pressure. Kind of like 2008.



And there is the loose lips admission of what this thread is REALLY ABOUT.. 
A bunch of AGW fans hanging around in their polar bear ballcaps getting high because the HOME TEAM 

"SUCKED"

this season..   Damn those Yankee Icebergs.. We'll get them next year.. 
Slightly sick.. Really... But thanks for insight Matthew...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 24, 2013)

I am a weather nut that loves seeing major weather events occur. Believe me I am not the typical climate believer.

I chase storms


----------



## elektra (Dec 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I am a weather nut that loves seeing major weather events occur. Believe me I am not the typical climate believer.
> 
> I chase storms



No your not the Typical Climate Believer, that is why you have to point it out.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2013)

Going to get some drinks and goodies as I watch 2014 kick ass and call names  Of course this in between chasing storms.


----------



## elektra (Dec 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Going to get some drinks and goodies as I watch 2014 kick ass and call names  Of course this in between chasing storms.



Is not "drinks", "goodies", and "chasing storms", non-essential activities, as in stuff you do not need to do, hence, you are wasting energy, you are destroying the environment for simple pleasures.

You are a hypocrite, wasting energy for frivolous pleasure.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2013)

We're at the same level as 2010 in thickness...






There's a huge variable of natural forcing's on the arctic sea ice.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 26, 2013)

CO2 does NOT drive climate.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 26, 2013)

Don't even have to know how to read to know there's melting going on,

greenland ice melt before and after - Google Search

thus I provide this for the 'it isn't happening' crowd. No reading required, I know you're not big fans of that book learnin'.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 26, 2013)

Kosh said:


> CO2 does NOT drive climate.



And if Bachman said it it must be true. What an idiot you both are.

Simple experiment you can do to test this, place a plastic bag over your head and breathe normally. As you deplete the air and replace it with CO2 does it feel warmer? ...Oh ya, and make sure you tell someone you're gonna do this. World needs its idiots to make everyone else look good by comparison.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 26, 2013)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does NOT drive climate.
> ...



No other scientist have said this an the ice core samples from real science shows that CO2 does NOT nor has ever driven climate.

Do try and keep up unless the AGW church doctrine is all that you will believe without question or hesitation.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 26, 2013)

matthew said:


> we're at the same level as 2010 in thickness...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*wrong*!

That graph you posted came originally from here:
Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2


>


*And it`s just an "improved" model forecast,* an estimate, published 2 years ago ! "Version2" because the previous version bombed out just like this one already did also.



> PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations.
> 
> this time series of ice volume is generated with an updated version of  PIOMAS (June-15,2011).  This updated version improves on prior versions  by assimilating sea surface temperatures (SST) for ice-free areas and by  using a different parameterization for the strength of the ice.  Comparisons of PIOMAS *estimates *with ice thickness observations show  reduced errors over the prior version


So what`s the idea trying to pass this off as a fact:"we`re at the same level as 2010 in thickness" ???

Skeptics aren`t as dumb as the brain dead  AGW idiots, we research and separate fact from fiction. So what made you think you would get away with that scam ?

I`m getting a bit tired being called a "denier" by people who deny reality and base their "reality" on sheep head consensus which in turn is supposed to legitimize crap like these "updated forecast estimates"


----------



## polarbear (Dec 26, 2013)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does NOT drive climate.
> ...


Does it? I guess you would know!...how to get high if you haven`t got any wacko-tobacco 
That`s how somebody who makes his living giving blow jobs would "explain" it.
And you  fit the bill !


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 26, 2013)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Don't even have to know how to read to know there's melting going on,
> 
> greenland ice melt before and after - Google Search
> 
> thus I provide this for the 'it isn't happening' crowd. No reading required, I know you're not big fans of that book learnin'.



Why not prove it's man made and not part of a natural cycle?


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

Kosh said:


> CO2 does NOT drive climate.



Of course it does.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does NOT drive climate.
> ...



Ok then post the datasets with source code that prove it.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

polarbear said:


> matthew said:
> 
> 
> > we're at the same level as 2010 in thickness...
> ...



Yeah, cuz this is so much easier to read the raw data,



> 1980    7
> 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0
> 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 99 99  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0
> 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 99 99 99 99 99  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0
> ...





> Why would anyone want to calculate data, that can be plotted, from these;
> 
> NSIDC-0050 Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) 10-Day Arctic Ocean EASE-Grid Sea Ice Observations
> G00799 Arctic and Southern Ocean Sea Ice Concentration
> ...


----------



## peach174 (Dec 26, 2013)

While this stuff gets ignored or buried in the scientific discussions.
Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice


Artic Sea Ice increasing.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

peach174 said:


> While this stuff gets ignored or buried in the scientific discussions.
> Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice
> 
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure the Earth's Magma doesn't get warmer over time.  Ergo, it can't account for AWG.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > While this stuff gets ignored or buried in the scientific discussions.
> ...



Are you REALLY sure? Because *we're scratching for a 1/2 degree here * in surface temperature grasshopper.. And the thickness of the crust cap could certainly be in that range. (or the pressure of the magma).. 

Actually shows how little we know -- especially since we also just found active volcanic vents on the side of Antarctica that is "losing" ice.. 

Doesn't account for the overall loss of ice --- but would sure explain the diff in REGIONAL melting rates..


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Yeah, I am pretty sure that the Earth's magma doesn't get warmer over time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Well bless your little brain-depraved heart.. You keep believing that no subsurface volcanic activity can change the surface crust temperature over time.. 

Ain't that cute? He's got 2 little playmate morons --- thanking him for that..


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You would have a point, except that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

But, hey, go ahead and keep stroking yourself.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 26, 2013)

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 all had higher ice extent in 2007

Weather is important within the arctic and with a warming climate = more moisture during the cold nights. I ran across a study about a year ago talking about how the sea ice would slow and even grow some years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I am pretty sure that the Earth's magma doesn't get warmer over time.
> ...



Why don't you respond to what he actually said rather than what you wanted him to say.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Are you encouraging me to tear him up --  rather than letting it slide? Because if it would entertain you --- I'd surely do it for ya.. 

It's such a stupid proposition that sub-surface magna can't change surface temperatures that I'm surprised you thanked him for that.. ((No I'm not))  

Maybe a better deal would be for me to save this issue for  [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] to handle when he's all tanned and rested from Hawaii.. He'd do a better job anyway..  Bat message has been sent..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



LOL. Of course the magma can change the surface temperature. It did so when it rose through the coal beds in Siberia 250 million years ago and released vast quantities of CH4 and CO2. And initiated the PT Extinction event. Now CO2 and CH4 doesn't give a damn how it gets into the atmosphere, it simply follows the laws of physics once it gets there and warms things up rather rapidly. And the fact that we as a species put the GHGs in the atmosphere is not going to change the result of those laws of physics one bit.

http://blogs.uoregon.edu/gregr/files/2013/07/ptoffset-108u8w6.pdf

Unusually large and locally variable carbon isotope excursions coincident with mass extinctions at the end of the Permian Period (253 Ma) and Guadalupian Epoch (260 Ma) can be attributed to methane outbursts to the atmosphere. Methane has isotopic values (d13C) low enough to reduce to feasible amounts the carbon required for isotopic mass
balance. The duration of the carbon isotopic excursions and inferred methane releases are here constrained to !10,000 yr by counting annual varves in lake deposits and by estimating peat accumulation rates. On paleogeographic maps, the most marked carbon isotope excursions formlinear arrays back to plausible methane sources: end-PermianSiberian
Traps and Longwood-Bluff intrusions of New Zealand and end-Guadalupian Emeishan Traps of China. Intrusion of coal seams by feeder dikes to flood basalts could create successive thermogenic methane outbursts of the observed timing and magnitude, but these are unreasonably short times for replenishment of marine or permafrost sources of methane. Methane released by fracturing and heating of coal during intrusion of large igneous provinces may have been a planetary hazard comparable with bolide impact.


----------

