# Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2012)

As of June 10th the volume is at record low levels and the area has just want below 2007!

We will be discussing the race for the record in this thread! What's even more AMAZING is the fact that we were almost to avg this winter!

Weather patterns are everything this year like the last 4 years as that will tell where we end up! If we see a strong ridge(arctic dipole) like 2007 that lasts through the season...Well, this will easly become number one, but if we see 3-5 weeks of low pressure like 2010, 2011 in the heart of the melt season we may end up in 2 or 3rd place.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

Yeah......that is amazing!!!


----------



## Warrior102 (Jun 10, 2012)

Who exactly is supposed to give a fuck?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Who exactly is supposed to give a fuck?




People that enjoy watching our planet function!
People that enjoy seeing records being broken!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

PIOMAS June 2012 - Arctic Sea Ice

Average thickness for May 31st (in m):
 &#8226;2005: 2.33
 &#8226;2006: 2.31
 &#8226;2007: 2.16
 &#8226;2008: 2.29
 &#8226;2009: 2.14
 &#8226;2010: 1.95
 &#8226;2011: 1.86
 &#8226;2012: 1.82


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

Who cares.............Antarctic ice expanding. ( shhhhh..........the true believers dont want you knwing about this )


IPCC gate Du Jour &#8211; Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50% | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Who cares.............Antarctic ice expanding. ( shhhhh..........the true believers dont want you knwing about this )
> 
> 
> IPCC gate Du Jour  Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50% | Watts Up With That?



Rather minor increase;

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

Compared to;

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


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares.............Antarctic ice expanding. ( shhhhh..........the true believers dont want you knwing about this )
> ...






But the "increase" is insignificant, only to the real hyper-believers. Getting selective about what to get angst over has done major damage to the efforts of the warming crowd...........appears very disingenuous............which in the bigger picture has turned out to be "significant".


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Higher temperature=higher evaporation rate(more water vapor)=more precipitation. At least over and near Antarctica. Dry air holds far less precipable water than warmer air does.


On a warming earth these very cold places would see a increase in *snow*.  Also one of the reasons why we seen such a huge extent of "sea ice" (arctic) based on satellite this winter is because of extra snow falling on it. Even through the volume is at its lowest volume ever! More snow reflects and makes it look that way...

A airmass of 20f holds far more water then -20f to reach the dew point to condense into clouds.


---
How this year will rank has 100 percent to DO with weather pattern. If we have the same pattern as 2007 this year, we will get into the 3,500,000-3,900,000's for extent...

We were within a week of melting last year of beating 2007...If we had 2 weeks instead of 3 weeks of crappy melting(clouds, low pressure) in August last year...We would been discussing 2011 as the record.

Understand a perfect high pressure(arctic dipole) like 2007 is likely every 15-20 year event.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PIOMAS June 2012 - Arctic Sea Ice
> 
> Average thickness for May 31st (in m):
> 2005: 2.33
> ...



According to the model sea ice volume hasn't been as low on May 31st as this year. It looks like we're seeing the same crash as in 2010 and 2011, but right now 2012 is 562 km3 lower than 2011, and 1262 km3 lower than 2010.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2012)

While the ice curve has been very lumpy this year, the direction of that curve right now is not good;

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> While the ice curve has been very lumpy this year, the direction of that curve right now is not good;
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area



2011 had 3 weeks of shitty malt(low pressure) in July into August than again a early end of the melt season. Well, 2011 almost beat 2007 coming within 100,000 of doing so. 

2012 has less volume than 2011...We see the same shitty patterns as 2010-2011 we will do it. IF WE SEE patterns coming close to 2007 we will destroy the RECORD.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 15, 2012)

Nearly a million KM below 2007 right now! Will be up to the pattern(weather set up) to give us the record or not...We came within 1 decent day in July(100,000 km^3) of beating 2007 last year. Easier this year!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2012)

Still dropping fast.

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


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 18, 2012)

Jax(japan)


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, remaining well below 2007. Close to 2010, 2011. It really is all going to lay on the weather pattern throughout the next 3 months. The second map shows temperature anomalies. A good pattern for melting on the Canada side...


----------



## old navy (Jun 23, 2012)

All that melting sea ice will freeze in the next Ice Age. I feel bad for the mastodon.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 23, 2012)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Jun 19, 2012

Sea ice tracking at record low levels

Analysis

After a period of rapid ice loss through the first half of June, sea ice extent is now slightly below 2010 levels, the previous record low at this time of year. Sea level pressure patterns have been favorable for the retreat of sea ice for much of the past month.





Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for 18 June 2012 (left) was 10.62 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles), 31,000 square kilometers (12,000 square miles) below the same day in 2010 (right). The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data 

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution images: Figure 1a, Figure 1b


Overview of conditions

On June 18, the five-day average sea ice extent was 10.62 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles). This was 31,000 square kilometers (12,000 square miles) below the same day in 2010, the record low for the day and 824,000 square kilometers (318,000 square miles) below the same day in 2007, the year of record low September extent.



Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of June 18, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for the previous four years. 2012 is shown in blue, 2011 in orange, 2010 in pink, 2009 in navy, 2008 in purple, and 2007 in green. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data. 

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image


Conditions in context

The main contributors to the unusually rapid ice loss to this point in June are the disappearance of most of the winter sea ice in the Bering Sea, rapid ice loss in the Barents and Kara Seas, and early development of open water areas in the Beaufort and Laptev Seas north of Alaska and Siberia. Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometers (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the climatological rate.






Figure 3: This map of mean sea level pressure from 15 May 2012 to 15 June 2012 shows a pattern of high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and a pattern of low pressure over the Laptev Sea, conditions favorable to summer ice loss. 

Credit: NSIDC courtesy NOAA/ESRL PSD
 High-resolution image

Sea level pressure favors the advection of ice

A pattern of high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and low pressure over the Laptev Sea has been present for the past few weeks. This pattern is favorable for summer ice loss, by advecting warm winds from the south (in eastern Asia) to melt the ice and transport it away from the coastlines in Siberia and Alaska. The high pressure over the Beaufort leads to generally clear skies, and temperatures are now above freezing over much of the Arctic pack. Snow cover in the far north is nearly gone, earlier than normal, allowing the coastal land to warm faster.

Early melt onset, and clear skies near the solstice are favorable conditions for more rapid melting, and warming of the ocean in open-water areas. The persistence of this type of pressure pattern throughout summer 2007 was a major factor toward causing the record low September extent that year. Conversely, in 2010, the patterns were not as favorable for loss of ice and the seasonal decline slowed later in the summer, and the extent did not approach the record low levels of 2007.

While these patterns and conditions have looked similar to 2007, over the last couple days the high pressure pattern over the Beaufort Sea has broken down*. And while the extent is at a record low for the date, it is still early in the melt season. Changing weather patterns throughout the summer will affect the exact trajectory of the sea ice extent through the rest of the melt season.*


----
We're slightly below 2011 in total volume, so it should be slightly easier than last year to reach the record. About like one or two cloudy days over the Arctic in July or August wise.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 5, 2012)

As of July 1st SIA was:

2012.5013 -1.9314744 6.3138075 8.2452822
2011.5013 -1.5253255 6.7199564 8.2452822
2010.5013 -1.6466062 6.5986757 8.2452822
2009.5013 -0.6222447 7.6230373 8.2452822
2008.5013 -0.9778000 7.1540303 8.1318302
2007.5013 -1.6577666 6.5875154 8.2452822


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 5, 2012)

Ice melting in the summer?

For fuck sake!

When was the last time that ever happened?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 5, 2012)

June 2012 compared to recent years
 Arctic sea ice extent for June 2012 was well below average for the month compared to the satellite record from 1979 to 2000. It was the second lowest in the satellite record, behind 2010. Through 2012, the linear rate of decline for June Arctic ice extent over the satellite record is 3.7% per decade.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 6, 2012)

old navy said:


> All that melting sea ice will freeze in the next Ice Age. I feel bad for the mastodon.



_Aww.  Tell you what.  Here comes Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the Permian/Triassic Extinction, for top spot, as all-time leading killer, in geologic time.

The P/T happened 251 m.y.a., and it leads the others, by a large margin, since most ocean species died out, and 7 of 10 land species died out, and every creature suffered die-offs.

The old ocean got acidic, then warmer, then more areas became anoxic.

The old jellyfish took over.  Then the old algae and bacteria bloomed.  H2S respirators evolved.  Sailing sucked!

Storms, floods, droughts, and fires all became worse, during volcanism, which we won't have as bad, unless we screw up, raise the sea level, and this forces seismic and volcanic events.  But since we are out-gassing CO2, at 10x the rate, prior to the PETM extinction, which isn't one of the big five, and since we are out-gassing CH4, faster, than before the P/T Extinction, we will have all the pre-conditions, necessary, to kill darned near every sea creature, with a lot of the land creatures.

IF we see volcanism AND CH4, will we die out, like animals did, during the P/T?  If you send in the old Marines, the old Navy will still have to sink or swim._


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2012)

Matthew said:


> June 2012 compared to recent years
> Arctic sea ice extent for June 2012 was well below average for the month compared to the satellite record from 1979 to 2000. It was the second lowest in the satellite record, behind 2010. Through 2012, the linear rate of decline for June Arctic ice extent over the satellite record is 3.7% per decade.



You do understand that it's not long enough to establish a planetary trend right?


----------



## old navy (Jul 6, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > All that melting sea ice will freeze in the next Ice Age. I feel bad for the mastodon.
> ...



No species have ever survived. Neither will we.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > June 2012 compared to recent years
> ...



Who's to say what we're seeing is an anomaly? We have warm, cold, warm, cold and we just came out of a huge cold period within the innerglacial (little ice age). We're now within a warm period! We as humans for the first time in the history of this planet have the tools to study our planet, should be curious to watch it and see what  warm regime is like. 

Nothing is wrong with doing so. 

Is it long enough within the sine wave pattern of the interglacial to see a new trend? No! In there's no data that suggest otherwise.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm wondering how valid it is to plot "areas with at least 15% sea ice."  That's a pretty rigid definition if you think about it.. That's not where the large volume of ice exists.. 

Would like to compare the plots to "areas with at least 25% sea ice" -- or even 40%. I bet there'd be a lot less hysteria.. I'd expect ALL areas with 15% or less to be too volatile to make a judgement call.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm wondering how valid it is to plot "areas with at least 15% sea ice."  That's a pretty rigid definition if you think about it.. That's not where the large volume of ice exists..
> 
> Would like to compare the plots to "areas with at least 25% sea ice" -- or even 40%. I bet there'd be a lot less hysteria.. I'd expect ALL areas with 15% or less to be too volatile to make a judgement call.



They pick the number that generates maximum hysteria...and then they manipulate the data


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering how valid it is to plot "areas with at least 15% sea ice."  That's a pretty rigid definition if you think about it.. That's not where the large volume of ice exists..
> ...



On one hand, you'd expect similiar but much smaller percentages for areas with 25% ice, (at least I would). On the other hand -- if the 40% ice graphs took a dive, I'd buy a kayak toute suite..


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2012)

The time 1979 to 2000 really isn't long enough to measure climate data on a planetary basis.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 6, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The time 1979 to 2000 really isn't long enough to measure climate data on a planetary basis.



_*Crapzndogz*, have you got any data, to study?  See how Matthew loads graphs and links, to studies?  See how you keep spamming dogshit-posts?  Go take a walk, with *sucksassandballs*, who is also part dog.  

You missed the part, about increased GHGs.  You missed the parts, about cars and chainsaws, accelerated out-gassing, oceanic acidification, sea level rise, more powerful storms, more floods, more droughts, desertification, and tracking dogshit, where it doesn't belong.  Do you have some comment, about a dataset?

Either make a point, or get your leash and go walkies, before you crap up the house.

GHGs are off the hook, the sun is relatively cool, and the planet is on fire.  Do you have a clue, or do you just have to let fucking everybody know, you have shit, for brains?_


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 6, 2012)

old navy said:


> No species have ever survived. Neither will we.



_How about this then: Born to kill, trained to get your shit together, and try to survive!

Does that seem reasonable?_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 6, 2012)

Anybody else thinking what Im thinking?


Bobnote here is spending a wee bit too much time in group navel contemplation sessions. s0n.........not for nothing but that's just gay.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Here you can see the ice concentration by percentage.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That just seems to prove the point that plotting the melt based on 15% sea ice is bullshit.. 

Because according to that pix -- It's EXTREMELY limited to the very edges of the ice pack and only has appreciable volume because of the large circumference.

Do you know of places where they use melt volumes based on anything OTHER than 15%? 

Now I REALLY want to know what that looks like over the recent years..


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 7, 2012)

_The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.

Meanwhile, you are a retard, with a big, fat ASS._


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.
> 
> Meanwhile, you are a retard, with a big, fat ASS._



Not a single fucking thing you can do about melting ice on planet Earth.

You're powerless.

Clueless too


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.
> 
> Meanwhile, you are a retard, with a big, fat ASS._



No. It's not.

Earth's Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought - US News and World Report

Man caused global warming had nothing to do with this either.

'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea - a huge undersea kingdom swamped by a tsunami 5,500 years ago | Mail Online

The wave was part of a larger process that submerged the low-lying area over the course of thousands of years. 


Read more: 'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea - a huge undersea kingdom swamped by a tsunami 5,500 years ago | Mail Online 

Over thousands of years.  Get that.  No man cause global warming, get that too.

Data from 1979 to 2000 is NOTHING in terms of planetary evolution.  It's less than a millisecond.

If there is global warming, which is debatable since  we have had period of warming and cooling before as we did in the Medieval Warm Period it is not likely caused by any activity of human beings.  Not any more than the much hyped global ice age hysteria of the 70s.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected. - Home

Did you know that in the past the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both several degrees warmer than today's temperature. The world then cooled at least four degrees from 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that have been in retreat until recently). These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces. 

It is hot now, but last year there was almost no summer at all.   If there are record heat temperatures this summer, last winter there were record cold temperatures.

February 2011, Moscow has coldest winter in 100 years link. Record low temperatures in San Francisco and Spokane link Link Minneapolis has most snow emergency days in city's history link New York City and Philadelphia shatter snowfall records link 

Winter 2010-2011 in the US, 39th coldest in 113 years of records. link link Temperatures are dropping an average of 4.1 deg F per decade link


Coldest March ('11) in Australia history link&#65279; Global temperatures in first 3 months of '11 are the coolest in the past decade link May '11 Australian ski slopes to open early with early cold link Seattle has coldest April in history in 2011 link Darwin Austalia has coldest May and June 2011 temps in history link


Northern Australia has coolest May in history link Record 2011 US snowpacks threaten western states link Record Sierra Mtn snowfall link Record 2011 snowpack in Rockies link


July 2011, South America gripped by brutal winter link July 2011 New Zealand sets record for coldest day ever link Unusual snows hit South Africa in late July 2011 link&#65279;

August 2011, Auckland New Zealand has coldest temperature in history, and first snow since 1939 link&#65279; New Zealand worst blizzards in 50 years link


Sept '11 Minnesota has record low temperatures and tie earliest snow record link&#65279;Parts of the UK have the coolest summer in 20 years, butterfly population suffers link&#65279; Switzerland has record September snows link


October '11, extremely rare early snow in Germany link&#65279; Earliest snows in Ireland since 1964 link New York City has largest October snow since the Civil War link Many records set for earliest snow and most snow in the northeast USA for October, millions without power link Many snow records broken in New England. link Colorado ski resorts have ealiest season opening in history link 80% of Australia cooler than normal in first ten months of 2011 link Record 2011 snow in U.S. link


November '11 British Columbia ski resort has earliest opening in its history link record Alaska snow link Russia south hit with record low temps link Northern Hemisphere has record snow cover extent for this date link Fairbanks Alaska has record low temps of -41F, 39 degrees below avg temp. link


December '11, Australia has coolest start to summer in 50 years, Brisbane coldest temps in 126 years link Alps have largest December snows in history link


January '12 Heavy frost damages Kenyan tea crops link Record snow and cold in northern India, 140 dead link Alaskan town digs out from 18 feet of now link Nome Alaska frozen in and running out of oil link Austria hit with heavy snow, rail lines cut link&#65279; Record cold in Canada link Seattle gets a years worth of snow in a single day link Record snow in northern Japan link India coldest day in 132 years link Artic seal shows up in Seattle link Anchorage smashes snowfall record link 


&#65279;&#65279;February '12 Europe caught in deadly deep freeze link  Coldest temps in Germany in 26 years as Eur&#65279;ope's cold temperatures kill over 300 link temps in China drop to - 50 Deg C link record cold in Europe for 3 weeks, many areas 25 degrees below normal, death toll numbers 600 link Sydney Australia experiences record coldest summer link Europe has coldest February in 26 years, and one of the ten coldest in 150 years link Coldest winter in memory in Mongolia, up to 40% of livestock froze to death in temps of -40 to -50 F. link


March '12 Oregon and Washington break all time March snowfall record link Bering Sea has second largest March ice extent on record link&#65279; Record breaking March cold in Tasmania Australia link Huge snowfall in China kills 90,000 livestock and impacts 25,000 people link First quarter 2012 was very warm in the USA link


April '12 Sydney, coldest day in 80 years. link May '12 UK on track for coldest May in 200 years. link


June '12 Sweden has one of the coldest Junes since records began in 1789. link Rare cold in New Zealand. link Argentina agrigulture frosts lead to crisis link Seattle has third coldest June in history link


The best and most accurate way to measure global temperatures are from satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. See how atmospheric temperatures have changed since the start of measurement in 1979 link &#65279;&#65279;

Though the 2011/12 Winter temperatures were warm in the U.S. global temps were the 11th coolest in 32 years of satelite measurement link

If in fact, there is such a thing as global warming that human being can affect (which is doubtful) you might be grateful for it, as the sun enters a cool phase.

With sun&#39;s activity set to diminish, is global cooling coming? | Fox News

The debate over global warming may be heating up again amid new scientific evidence that the sun's activity is cooling down -- which will cause temperatures to fall on planet Earth, scientists say.

A recent surge in scorching solar flares millions of miles long comes from a peak in the sun's activity cycle. Yet "Cycle 25," the next 11-year activity phase, will be one of the weakest in centuries, NASA predicts -- a decrease that will mean fewer flares and more fleece sweaters.

If solar output reduced below that seen [in the late 1600s] the global temperature reduction would be 0.13 C, the U.K. Met Office said.

That's not a big change, of course. *But since global air temperatures have remained more or less flat over the past 12 years, according to the newest climate data, the coming lull in the suns activity may mean a decrease in world temperatures.*


The effect of human activity on global temperature has exactly the same effect as throwing bones in a circle to cause rain.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2012)

My greatest fear is that some vastly superior alien civilization will capture and interrogate Rdean and Bobgnote to see if Earth is really inhabited by sentient beings


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 7, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.
> ...



_Whoever re-greens deserts and polluted areas may eventually affect ice behavior.

What's "clueless," Crosstard?  Don't I know you are a fucktard?  What else are you?_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Why don't you and Olde Rocks push on planet Earth to move it further from the Sun?

That's a good use of your time


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2012)

Wait until noon when the Sun is overhead, then jump up and down to push Earth further from the Sun.

It will offset all the damage the CO2 is doing


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2012)

Sunspots??? Go tell ourchangingclimate.com to plot the total TSI for that period.. Number of Sunspots my finely sculpted derriere..


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 7, 2012)

_*Crapzndogz* found a US News article, with a brief reference, to how polar ice is melting less, without reference to which pole or to more than a total figure.  *Crapzndogz* gets over to some shit about Atlantis, so read his shit, if you like shit.

The US News article live linked three other articles, and one was about the global warming economy.  The other two:_

Study: Global Warming is Real - US News and World Report

"Global warming is real," a team of scientists at the University of California at Berkeley said Friday. Since the 1950s, the earth has warmed about 1° C.

Last year, Richard Muller and a team of colleagues, including Saul Perlmutter, 2011 Nobel Prize winner in physics, started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study to review and assess the accuracy of existing land temperature data. The team looked at temperature data from 15 previous studiesamounting to some 1.6 billion combined records dating back to 1800on the subject.

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

Introduction: 10 Reasons Americans Aren

_US News is basically shit, for people with no attention span._

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







_You can see, how although the solar intensity is tailing off, CO2 is increasing, and temperature is being forced up.  With increased CH4 out-gassing, that temperature will keep on rising.

What is so difficult, about figuring out, what cars and chainsaws did, with humans playing them?

Warming is not only underway, CLIMATE CHANGE is evident.  You really have to be an asshole, to ignore the climatic effects, but hey, they are happening, as a direct result, of the greenhouse effect and runaway is underway._

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

Climate Change: Evidence


----------



## Toro (Jul 7, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My greatest fear is that some vastly superior alien civilization will capture and interrogate Rdean and Bobgnote to see if Earth is really inhabited by sentient beings



I'm hoping they pick up TM.

That'd be hilarious.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2012)

Since you moved the post --- I'll move my comment.. 

Sunspots??? Go tell ourchangingclimate.com to plot the total TSI for that period.. Number of Sunspots my finely sculpted derriere.. 

Hey I got an idea Gollum.. Since THIS below is your big solution... 


<<bobgnote>>


> Whoever re-greens deserts and polluted areas may eventually affect ice behavior.



Why don't you go put together a proposal for regreensing the deserts and polluted areas and dedicate 1/2 as much time to that as you do mindlessly spewing profanity onto the science and technology threads?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Do your part. At noon today hop up and down on the Earth to push it further away from the Sun


----------



## old navy (Jul 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > No species have ever survived. Neither will we.
> ...



How's this for reasonable, twatstain?

I sit here with the AC blowing full blast and then I get in my truck with a big V-8 engine and ride around until the Atlantic splashes up around my ankles 200 miles inland.


----------



## old navy (Jul 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.
> 
> Meanwhile, you are a retard, with a big, fat ASS._



You're an angry little ****, aren't you?


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

old navy said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _The Arctic perennial ice is MELTING, *Fatass*!  The annual ice is melting FASTER, than ever!  It's melting faster, than ever, even though the sun is less intense, in the last several decades, and the recent short-term solar cycle is mild.
> ...



_What do you want from life, *old numbnuts*?  Life is a queer parade to you, isn't it.

I'm not particularly angry, unless I have to actually make contact with sub-human species, like you, which don't have any of the nice character of birds or dogs or cats or monkeys.  Eat dog shit and die, old punkfag.

Your bath-houses are all closed, *old numbnuts*.  What do you have to live for?_


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Why don't you go put together a proposal for regreensing the deserts and polluted areas and dedicate 1/2 as much time to that as you do mindlessly spewing profanity onto the science and technology threads?



_Re-greening deserts will require an indulgent administration, of a major nation.

Re-greening deserts, during climate change will require genetic engineering, by some company, like Monsanto.  

Seems to me the dilemma posed, by the Obamney sack race means it's time to cuss punkfucks like you and *old numbnuts*, *Fatass*.  I'm a few layers removed, from going out, to learn DDD-rats will screw with Ralph Nader, already, and look what you moronic redstate of mind shitballs do!

Meanwhile, you are a punkfuck, who can't load a study, since you don't have one, and you sometimes load a graph, without labeled plots or recent history.  You are a punkfuck, which posts at environment threads, after all._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you go put together a proposal for regreensing the deserts and polluted areas and dedicate 1/2 as much time to that as you do mindlessly spewing profanity onto the science and technology threads?
> ...



Duly noted. Check. Check.. This post marked and logged.. Let the regreensing begin..


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

Global warming is a hoax.



Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

5397433A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.


Because global warming is a hoax and has been every since the East Anglia information was leaked, the danger was rebranded as climate change which covers cold winters as well as warm summers.

Archived-Articles: Climatism: That Climate Change Chameleon

Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology. Calling it "global warming" for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis "climate change" after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Last month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term "global climate disruption.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2012)

Oh......almost forgot............









The queer paraders want to see them................


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

Global warming is a hoax like global cooling was a hoax in the 70s.   Like the danger from the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax.  The ALAR scare was a hoax.  No hoax made the billions that the biggest hoax of all generated, the Y2K hoax.

These hoaxes make money.  

Children just aren't going to know what sun is &#8211; Telegraph Blogs

Activists use phonied up climate change data to pay off developing countries not to develop while the industrialized nations scurry around de-developing to bring them to the level of the 3rd world.  That is, what's left after the activists deduct the handling charge for their good work.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Now here's an honest assessment from your link... 



> To melt the additional 280 km3 of sea ice, the amount we have have been losing on an annual basis based on PIOMAS calculations, it takes roughly 8.6 x 1019 J or 86% of U.S. energy consumption.
> 
> However, when spread over the area  covered by Arctic sea ice, the additional energy required to melt this much sea ice is actually quite small. *It corresponds to about 0.4 Wm-2 . Thats like leaving a very small and dim flashlight battery continuously burning on every square meter of ice. Tracking down such a small difference in energy is very difficult, and underscores why we need to look at longer time series and consider the uncertainties in our measurements and calculations.* For example, the energy required to melt the ice volume corresponding to the 33-year period from 1979-2011 [9240 km3] is roughly 10 Wm-2. This is still a challenge given the uncertainties in our observation systems, but more tractable.



Gee -- 0.4W/m2 eh? Wonder how that compares to increasing TSI over the past couple centuries?? 

"such a small difference"  --- does THAT put it in perspective for you bunky?


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.
> 
> Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News
> 
> ...



_Because you are a burning bag of dog shit, *Crapzndogz*, you posted a link, to a dead issue, which was before the 2009 Congress.  The matter is no longer before Congress.  2010 was the hottest year, on instrument record, and 2012 looks like it will be right up, with 1998 and 2010.  

Meanwhile, climate indicators like severe storms, floods, rising sea level, droughts, desertification, and wildfires are starting to do a lot of damage.  The Guardian returned, to the e-mail controversy, in 2011, but the "controversy" isn't shit, and it never was worth a crap, so what do you want, *Crapzndogz*:_

The leaked climate science emails



> Archived-Articles: Climatism: That Climate Change Chameleon
> 
> Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology. Calling it "global warming" for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis "climate change" after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Last month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term "global climate disruption.



_One of the features of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING is CLIMATE CHANGE.  Ice is melting, including perennial Arctic ice, glaciers, and permafrost.  CH4 and more CO2 out-gasses, from the melt and from warming lands and waters, formerly frozen.

Hey!  If you are an ASSHOLE, you can deny first warming, then climate change, which are both happening.  If you are a STUPID ASSHOLE, you can run some kind of scam, confusing what is happening, and you can confuse terms, like weather, warming, and climate.  You seem to be a real, shitting asshole, *Crapzndogz*.  Ever played, with a brain?

The out-gassing will accelerate global warming, which will accelerate climate change, which includes such measures as storms, floods, sea level rise, oceanic acidification and anoxia, droughts, desertification, and wildfires:_

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2012)

If Bobg and OR jumped on the Earth at the same time, they would move it twice as far from the Sun if they acted alone.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax like global cooling was a hoax in the 70s.   Like the danger from the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax.  The ALAR scare was a hoax.  No hoax made the billions that the biggest hoax of all generated, the Y2K hoax.
> 
> These hoaxes make money.
> 
> Activists use phonied up climate change data to pay off developing countries not to develop while the industrialized nations scurry around de-developing to bring them to the level of the 3rd world.  That is, what's left after the activists deduct the handling charge for their good work.



It is too bad that you are such an ignorant and confused retard. Did your parents drop you on your head a lot or is your mental retardation congenital (or both)?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If Bobg and OR jumped on the Earth at the same time, they would move it twice as far from the Sun if they acted alone.



Do you think that you will ever post anything that isn't completely moronic and pointless?....*ever*?....or is that a futile hope, given how utterly retarded you obviously are?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If Bobg and OR jumped on the Earth at the same time, they would move it twice as far from the Sun if they acted alone.
> ...



OMG!  If the three of you jumped together you'd push the Earth into safe non-Global Warming orbit


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a hoax like global cooling was a hoax in the 70s.   Like the danger from the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax.  The ALAR scare was a hoax.  No hoax made the billions that the biggest hoax of all generated, the Y2K hoax.
> ...


----------



## tjvh (Jul 8, 2012)

Matthew said:


> As of June 10th the volume is at record low levels and the area has just want below 2007!
> 
> We will be discussing the race for the record in this thread! *What's even more AMAZING* is the fact that we were almost to avg this winter!
> 
> Weather patterns are everything this year like the last 4 years as that will tell where we end up! If we see a strong ridge(arctic dipole) like 2007 that lasts through the season...Well, this will easly become number one, but if we see 3-5 weeks of low pressure like 2010, 2011 in the heart of the melt season we may end up in 2 or 3rd place.



What's really *amazing* is that people seem to believe that a few decades worth of data is *enough* to interpret the actual changes our planet goes through in the course of tens of thousands of years. *Not only is it amazing, it is also quite laughable.*


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

It was a hoax in 2008 and is a hoax today.

Not only did they have to fiddle with the data to judge the rate at which ice is melting, but they totally failed to factor in the years when ice increased.

Earth's Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought - US News and World Report

IF the ice was really melting and melting at the rate currently postulated, the oceans would rise at the rate of 6 hundredths of an inch a year AND that supposes that there will never be a freeze again.  

Every summer it gets hot and crazy people scream global warming.   Just like every winter it gets cold and crazy people scream climate change.

The same people who really believed that at midnight on December 31, 1999, the world would stop and we would be immediately back into 1900.   Had we had an internet back in the day, we would have been subjected to blather about how hair spray was dissolving the ozone layer.  The hole was getting bigger, no it was getting smaller, oh oh, now it's bigger again.   Only to have scientists come up with the clever conclusion that there is a hole in the ozone layer, it gets bigger and smaller according to some force we don't know but it's been there forever and isn't going to change no matter how much spray deodorant we don't use.

The scam of course, is global warming hysteria itself.   It is a way to bilk billions of dollars out of anyone UN scientists can fool.   How many billions did the UN get to help poor countries protect against Y2K?  The US spent 235 billion alone.   

Once global warming has been depleted of all its value, there will be a new catastrophe, equally as stupid.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > As of June 10th the volume is at record low levels and the area has just want below 2007!
> ...



What's amazing is that scientists believe they can control the planetary temperature the same way shamen could control rain by throwing chicken bones into a circle drawn in the dirt.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It was a hoax in 2008 and is a hoax today.
> 
> Not only did they have to fiddle with the data to judge the rate at which ice is melting, but they totally failed to factor in the years when ice increased.
> 
> ...






Katz bro...........gotta stop in here more often. It is THE place to see far left mental meltdowns on this whole board. Indeed........it is the pronounced level of k00k that keeps me coming back in here = social oddballs that have no conception of the "mean". You'd think their views were embraced by a huge majority They keep posting up the same links and graphs for the last 4 or 5 years and still nobody is caring in the real world. THATS what makes this place a hoot.


----------



## tjvh (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



That too!


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It was a hoax in 2008 and is a hoax today.
> 
> Not only did they have to fiddle with the data to judge the rate at which ice is melting, but they totally failed to factor in the years when ice increased.
> 
> ...



_So you posted the same, shitty US News link, to a January 2012 report, which has since been exceeded, by everything Matthew posted, before you even add what the rest of us posted, all the way, to today's page 5, see your page 3 and my page 3 posts:_

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-melt-in-the-arctic-2012-a-3.html#post5580156

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-melt-in-the-arctic-2012-a-3.html#post5581991

_You need to take yourself, for another walk, Crapzndogz.  You sure are shitty!_


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

_O.R. must have posted this, but in case he didn't, let's repost this, to keep *Crapzndogz* busy:_

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2


_Hey!  *Crapzndogz*!  There's less ice, every year, and this is during mild solar cycles:_







_Don't forget to tell *Dogznshit* and* Punkznfuck* and *Crapforbrains*!_


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2012)

This is how you get to global warming.


The government gives raw data to a bunch of "scientists" and says "If you find global warming we will give you billions of dollars.  If you don't find global warming you will lose your job and we will make every effort to discredit you and ruin your career."

The melting sea ice means no more today than freezing sea ice meant when we had record freezes last go around.   A year's worth of data or ten or twenty years worth of data is meaningless.  You can't extrapolate from that what's going to happen.   You have a report that says in 2012 sea ice is melting, but in 2010 it was growing!

Arctic sea ice growing - Climate scientists confused | Ecological Problems

In the last couple of years the Arctic ice was shrinking so rapidly that certain climate change scientists even made predictions how by the the year 2013 Arctic will be completely ice-free in summer months. However, the latest measured data showed that the amount of sea ice in Arctic has dramatically increased last month, reaching levels not seen at this time of year for a very long time.

In fact, since the year 2001 there hasn't been so much recorded ice at Arctic, and for the first time since 2001 Arctic ice cover is getting near to long-term average levels. This situation surprised many climate change scientists but most of them are still convinced that this is not the sign that there's no global warming but just a part of yearly variations in ice cover mainly caused by this year's unusually cold winter.

In the 1970s sea ice was growing so fast that scientists were predicting that only a narrow perimeter around the equator would be ice free by the end of the century.

Planetary changes take place over the course of millions of years, not 20 years or 50 years.  The Sahara desert used to be a sea, global warming didn't dry it up into a desert.   It just dried up into a desert.  But it took a very, very long time to do it.

What will happen, in the future, is that sea ice will be suddenly discovered to be like the hole in the ozone layer.  Sometimes it grows, sometimes it shrinks.  No one knows why it just does.

If you really want something to worry about, try the caldera at Yellowstone.   When it blows it will take out 2/3 of the whole country.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> This is how you get to global warming.
> 
> 
> The government gives raw data to a bunch of "scientists" and says "If you find global warming we will give you billions of dollars.  If you don't find global warming you will lose your job and we will make every effort to discredit you and ruin your career."
> ...



Typical of denier cult dimwits like ol' Kracknbrain here to cherry-pick some idiotic, two year old mistaken interpretation of some data from some moronic blogger and think that it means anything. 

*Arctic sea-ice levels at record low for June 
Scientists say that the latest observations suggest that Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to shrink and thin*

    John Vidal, environment editor
    The Guardian
27 June 2012
(excerpts)

*Sea ice in the Arctic has melted faster this year than ever recorded before, according to the US government's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). Satellite observations show the extent of the floating ice that melts and refreezes every year was 318,000 square miles less last week than the same day period in 2007, the year of record low extent, and the lowest observed at this time of year since records began in 1979. Separate observations by University of Washington researchers suggest that the volume of Arctic sea ice is also the smallest ever calculated for this time of year.

Scientists cautioned that it is still early in the "melt season", but said that the latest observations suggest that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to shrink and thin and the pattern of record annual melts seen since 2000 is now well established. Last year saw the second greatest sea ice melt on record, 36% below the average minimum from 1979-2000. "Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometres (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the climatological rate. While the extent is at a record low for the date, it is still early in the melt season. Changing weather patterns throughout the summer will affect the exact trajectory of the sea ice extent through the rest of the melt season," said a spokesman for the NSIDC.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

Like I said -- when you pick areas with "at least 15% sea ice" and declare the whole thing melted and measure the area --- it sure sounds huge don't it?? 

Only problem is -- 85% of the area they are measuring never had any ice.. 

Maybe I'd be impressed if they used "areas with at least 50% sea ice", but then there wouldn't be as much hysteria would there?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Like I said -- when you pick areas with "at least 15% sea ice" and declare the whole thing melted and measure the area --- it sure sounds huge don't it??
> 
> Only problem is -- 85% of the area they are measuring never had any ice..
> 
> Maybe I'd be impressed if they used "areas with at least 50% sea ice", but then there wouldn't be as much hysteria would there?



That's total nonsense. You quite obviously have no frigging idea what you're blabbing on about. As usual for you, fecalton.

Scientists use two terms, sea ice extent and sea ice area. Sea ice area is larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice. Which means that any grid square on their map that has "at least" 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice area even if that grid square was 85% open water. Quite a bit of the areas that are currently open water were ice covered year round a few decades ago.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said -- when you pick areas with "at least 15% sea ice" and declare the whole thing melted and measure the area --- it sure sounds huge don't it??
> ...



The graph used above is CLEARLY LABELED "Sea Ice Extent" USING the definition of containing "at 15% of sea ice".. So in an area of "15% sea ice" the OPEN area would be counted as well as the iced area in the melt. That's a more than just a loose choice of parameter. It's on purpose. So that the sheer number of "SEA ICE EXTENT" appears to be big enough to cause folks to gasp. 

Now Sea Ice VOLUME would be different wouldn't it? And I've seen some studies using that more honest metric. But I've yet to see a graph where "extent of sea ice" is quantized using anything more realistic like "25% sea ice" or even 50% sea ice. 

Stuff your observation about what the "extent USED to be". The graph (such as it is) speaks for itself.. Or should I say SHREIKS for itself...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2012)

What if Rolling, BobG and OldRocks all jumped on the Earth at the same time to push it futher from the Sun....would that stop the ice from melting?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What if Rolling, BobG and OldRocks all jumped on the Earth at the same time to push it futher from the Sun....would that stop the ice from melting?



It's mV(squared) -- so yeah it would help to add another, but just 2 jumping a little faster would get the job done..


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

_*Fecaltoons* has some kind of shit-picture, which he keeps trying to draw, since he can't link to anything, but shit, and his shit keeps getting named as stinky and sticky.

Here's the basics, of how the sea ice has declined, in an accelerating zig-zag, downward:_






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

_Here's where the decline is going, even if some retard thinks a temporary upward trend is a general trend:_






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

_When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space.  When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory.  And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.

No matter how retarded you are, if you are alive, during THAT time, you will notice bad shit._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

<<BobGollumNote>>


> When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.



Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year. 

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You're even more stupid than I thought. You've got it backwards, retard. An area with at least 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice extent even if it has mostly open seas with no ice. It is actually a very conservative way of quantifying how much of the ice cover has melted (and isn't coming back). Not too surprising that you would get it backwards, fecalton, considering how far up your azzhole your head must be jammed. Everything must look "backwards" from that position.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <<BobGollumNote>>
> 
> 
> > When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.
> ...



_But *Fecaltoons*, if you weren't so full of cartoon shit, you'd link to a study and a couple of graphs, showing how albedo transfers neatly, from retreating Arctic sea ice, to cloud cover.

Fact is, H2O is a GHG, so a lot of what any fresh H2O in Earth's atmosphere does is not to simply reflect.  That new H2O will trap IR.  You need to come up with a study, again.

You don't ever do THAT, do you, *Fecaltoonces*.  Check the Arctic:_


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > <<BobGollumNote>>
> ...



I don't share with you because you're a disgusting little troll.. And I find it utterly disgusting that you claim to read this stuff, but continue to act like a mental case. 

But don't doubt stuff that relatively well known like the feedback effects associated with albedo changes in the Arctic.. How many refs do u want there Gollum?

The Impacts of Albedo, Solar Zenith Angle, and Clouds on the Transition from Melt to Freeze in the High-Latitude Arctic | State of the Arctic 2010



> The transition from melt to freeze-up appears to be a consequence of air-mass advection associated with tenuous low-level cloud cover and a lack of cloud liquid, essentially eliminating the warming associated with cloud longwave forcing. After this brief cold regime, low-level liquid-containing clouds returned and the progression to a widespread freeze-up was inhibited until the clouds disappeared once again. The influence of increasing surface albedo and solar zenith angles, as well as the effect of cloud cover on the downwelling radiative fluxes are identified as key components in the transition from melt to freeze-up in the Arctic.



I don't see the value in justifying myself to you.. Can you explain why I should value your opinion of me? Preferably in Oxford English? Naaah .. Don't bother..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You actually had me worried there for a moment pardner. So I performed detailed anatomical checks and painstaking measurements (mirrors were involved) and I am now certain that my head is properly positioned and oriented and has NEVER been near my "azzhole".. But I WAS relying on my math intuition and reasoning. So I did check the premise.. 

Depends on what you're trying to prove whether 15% is generous or not. First off, SIExtent is widely popular because of satellite data. Every joe can get it. Looks pretty. But doesn't really tell you shit about the melt. Because most of the satellite data used doesn't know 3" of ice from 3m of ice when it's sitting on water. And therefore is meaningless in terms of volume of melt.

If your goal is to come up with the biggest wickedly scariest number you can conjure, then what you want to do is exploit -- 

1) the a priori knowledge that SIExtent IS decreasing.
2) the fact that it is most apparent and volatile at the extremes of extent.
3) use the largest definition of "iced" by sea surface area that you can defend.
4) that you get bigger melt rates the larger you can make the circumference of the extent. (most important) 

It's easy to see why the scariest numbers come from the lowest threshold of "iced". If you were to defined "iced" as at least 50% of area covered -- then obviously the expected yearly decline would be a lower rate. *To carry it to the limit -- if it was 80 to 100% the rate of SIExtent decline would be near zero --- *WOULDN'T it? 

Now that said -- there are some studies that show there's not a lot of diff in the RATE of decline between 15 and 30% -- but the AREA involved is a lot different. Yielding bigger SIExtent numbers at both the annual min and max for 15% definition of course. 

There isn't even total agreement on the size of the quantizing boxes used or even whether to normalize the actual iced areas ABOVE the 15% threshold.

At any rate -- take all those pretty pictures with a grain of salt. The types of summer melts -- even the most drastic have been observed to "heal" in literally one season according to this flimsy methodology. 

Not that I'm doubting that the world is warming and the ice is melting.. Now THAT'S a given. I'm reserving ALL my energy to understanding WHY this is happening.

That's the more important issue...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What if Rolling, BobG and OldRocks all jumped on the Earth at the same time to push it futher from the Sun....would that stop the ice from melting?
> ...



Makes sense since they believe that mankind can alter the climate right?

Mush easier just to alter Earth orbit


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Nonsensical gibberish. You really have no idea what you're talking about, you poor confused retard.

Since 1979, Arctic sea ice extent has been declining at an average rate of 3.7% per decade. This is an actual, measurable decline in the ice extent and the rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of 15% as the threshold for considering an area ice covered.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



_Yeah, *Fekie-poo*, you shouldn't try to justify posting a deflection study, even if it is from an interesting org.  You know, *Fekester*, "the transition from melt to freeze-up" isn't the transition, from lost sea-ice albedo, to cloud albedo, with research, into how much GWP of marginal atmospheric H2O affects any net albedo effect.

Why justify yourself, to ME?  I know you are a goddamned queer, throwing up deflection media, when you do that because YOU DON'T HAVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, WHICH SHOW YOUR FANTASTIC, PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSIONS, about warming or climate change.  You just are too fucking retarded, for the real world.

You should be on TV, *Fecaltoons*, every Saturday Night._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Of course it does at some point because I told you that if the criteria was 80%, the rate of de-icing would be close to zero.. Whenever you have a population distribution that you're trying to slice and dice (in this case sea area), you can fiddle with MAXing or MINing the Cumlative part of that distribution by choosing the threshold or knowing HOW that distribution behaves under the conditions in the study (in this case, thinner ice melts faster than thicker ice). 

Of course there is a trend.. I'm just arguing that SIExtent and it's methodology is a volatile measurement because it does not actually measure the volume of the melt. That's why it ping-pongs back and forth and skeptics/believers go nuts. It's all about the PR power of those pictures showing ice of some INDETERMINANT thickness ebbing and flowing. THAT can make the evening news.. 

Sea Ice Area and Sea Ice Volume are more important to the true doomsday crew.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



It's IN THE STUDY numbnuts.. Go BUY IT AND READ IT.. Who told you that reading the Abstract is sufficient? Did you learn that in astrophysics?

I have free access to almost ANY technical journal in the world.. It sucks to be you....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2012)

Even if it is melting, so what? What the fuck can you do about it?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You tell us a lot of things, fecalton, but most of them are total bullcrap. Like this one. You still are too stupid to understand that they are counting any area of the ocean with at least 15% ice cover as part of the sea ice area which actually tends to exaggerate the area still ice covered. Arctic sea ice has visibly, measurably declined steeply in both extent and thickness over the last five decades. The ice is disappearing and your moronic fantasies about the methodology are irrelevant. 

*NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster
NASA*
02.29.12
(excerpts)

*A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Oceans floating ice cap. The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again. The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of the study, which was recently published in Journal of Climate.

The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades. Multi-year ice "extent"  which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface  is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found. Theres another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Comiso found that multi-year ice area is shrinking even faster than multi-year ice extent, by -17.2 percent per decade. "The average thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover is declining because it is rapidly losing its thick component, the multi-year ice. At the same time, the surface temperature in the Arctic is going up, which results in a shorter ice-forming season," Comiso said. "It would take a persistent cold spell for most multi-year sea ice and other ice types to grow thick enough in the winter to survive the summer melt season and reverse the trend."

Scientists differentiate multi-year ice from both seasonal ice, which comes and goes each year, and "perennial" ice, defined as all ice that has survived at least one summer. In other words: all multi-year ice is perennial ice, but not all perennial ice is multi-year ice (it can also be second-year ice). Comiso found that perennial ice extent is shrinking at a rate of -12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of -13.5 percent per decade. These numbers indicate that the thickest ice, multiyear-ice, is declining faster than the other perennial ice that surrounds it.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2012)

Now there you go.. That is significant. It confirms my point that SIExtent is a silly ass metric to argue over. 



> There&#8217;s another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. *Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent*, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean.



Doesn't however contradict anything I said or my "intuition" about choosing thresholds to magnify your assumptions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Now there you go.. That is significant. It confirms my point that SIExtent is a silly ass metric to argue over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well of course it does, you sill retard, you're just too stupid to understand your own mistakes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <<BobGollumNote>>
> 
> 
> > When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.
> ...


*
So states the fellow who posts yap-yap beginning with "I have read" then posts no links to support his statements. 

Cloud cover is a two edged sword. It also retains heat at night. In fact, a recent warm day in the Alaskan Arctic with a foggy night resulted in a 4"+ melt of the sea ice.*

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

On June 17-18, a confluence of weather conditions, including a daytime high of 19 degrees Celsius (66 degrees Fahrenheit), overnight condensing fog, and bright sun in the afternoon combined to produce exceptional surface melt of just under 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) in a 24-hour period, according to preliminary lidar data. By June 18, ice conditions had deteriorated significantly and with strong winds forecast out of the west, safety dictated it was time to get off the ice. Collisions of the pack with the weakened shore fast ice on June 21-23 resulted in substantial deformation and a series of ice pushes onto the beach, an amazing process to watch from the safety of land.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > <<BobGollumNote>>
> ...



Tell us again how the oceans are turning acidic.

It's all from the same source, right?  The CO2 that's melting the ice caps is turning the oceans acidic and killing oysters in Oregon, right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2012)

*What is being said here is that at the end of the melt season, as the angle of the sun decreases, the increased temparture of the open water will not prevent the freezeup. Nowhere does it state that this effect will prevent melting when the angle of the sun is higher.  *

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...tween-arctic-system-components/pdf/sedlar.pdf

Summary
The surface temperature time series illustrates a series of regimes, where the first few days are at the end of the summer melt season. This regime is followed by a temporary cold period, mainly caused by
advective processes; surface temperature is higher than near surface air temperature. Melt ponds and open water starts freezing and at the end a weather system with new snow passes. This permanently
increases the surface albedo and although cloud radiative forcing is large and positive in the following period, surface temperatures never recover, and as the cloud cover dissapate at the end, the temperatures plunge.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

So this CO2 ocean acidification effect must be really, really strong to overcome the new fresh water from the ice melt, amiright?


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So this CO2 ocean acidification effect must be really, really strong to overcome the new fresh water from the ice melt, amiright?











> Even if it is melting, so what?  What the fuck can you do about it?




_We can re-green the planet, and we have to avoid re-retarding the humans.  That means you shouldn't be making kids, *Crosstard*.  So sorry, if you fucked that up.

Meanwhile, you didn't study double-entry accounting, yet, did you.  Black Obamney must enter both a debit and credit, if he wants to make an entry, fucking bitch-stupid geek._


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2012)

2012.5260 -1.7798516 5.5981722 7.3780236
2012.5288 -1.9248636 5.3582525 7.2831163
2012.5315 -1.9376196 5.2500610 7.1876807
2012.5343 -1.9923180 5.1030092 7.0953274
2012.5370 -1.9642907 5.0465446 7.0108352
2012.5397 -1.9037149 5.0369329 6.9406481
2012.5425 -2.0189762 4.8619661 6.8809423


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *What is being said here is that at the end of the melt season, as the angle of the sun decreases, the increased temparture of the open water will not prevent the freezeup. Nowhere does it state that this effect will prevent melting when the angle of the sun is higher.  *
> 
> http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...tween-arctic-system-components/pdf/sedlar.pdf
> 
> ...



More proof of the &#8216;climate warming&#8217; hoax: Polar Ice Caps Larger than Long-Term Average, NOAA Satellites Show at US Action News



> More proof of the climate warming hoax: Polar Ice Caps Larger than Long-Term Average, NOAA Satellites Show
> 
> The earths polar ice caps are no smaller today than they were 30 years ago, when satellites first began accurately measuring polar ice, NOAA satellite data report. The polar ice caps are currently somewhat larger than the 30-year average.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2012)

As usual, Pattycake, you are full of shit. Over the period of satellite observation, the total sea ice area has declined. You can see that here;

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


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 25, 2012)

Sea ice continues to track at low levels

July 24, 2012


Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. Melt onset began earlier than normal throughout most of the Arctic.

&#8212;
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for July 23, 2012 was 7.32 million square kilometers (2.82 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image


Overview of conditions
 As of July 23, 2012, sea ice extent was 7.32 million square kilometers (2.82 million square miles). On the same day last year, ice extent was 7.22 million square kilometers (2.78 million square miles), the previous record low for this day.

Arctic sea ice extent continued to track at very low levels, setting daily record lows for the satellite era for a few days in early July. Extent is especially low in the Barents, Kara, and Laptev seas. In the Barents and Kara seas, the area of open water extends to the north coasts of Franz Josef Land and Severnaya Zemlya, as far north as typically seen during September, the end of the summer melt season. Polynyas in the Beaufort and East Siberian seas continued to expand during the first half of July. By sharp contrast, ice extent in the Chukchi Sea remains near normal levels. In this region the ice has retreated back to the edge of the multiyear ice cover. Ice cover in the East Greenland Sea, while of generally low concentration, remains 
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

What's saving it from blowing last year away is there is a huge arctic storm over the Pacific side. This is keeping it intact for now. Still below 2007 for this time...2011 starts moving inward within the next week or two...So if this can stay below 2007 we will start being at record levels soon.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 25, 2012)

_As the global system incorporates more melt, the plots of sea ice will turn, clockwise, from year-to-year.

This will happen, as more water in the climate systems ends up, as annual ice, and more heat prevents this, from becoming perennial ice.

Local systems like Alaska will show more precip and slightly lower temps, while everybody else roasts or swims._


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 25, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _As the global system incorporates more melt, the plots of sea ice will turn, clockwise, from year-to-year.
> 
> This will happen, as more water in the climate systems ends up,[sic] as annual ice,[sic] and more heat prevents this,[sic] from becoming perennial ice.
> 
> Local systems like Alaska will show more precip and slightly lower temps, while everybody else roasts or swims._




Learn the language or get the fuck out of my country, moron.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 25, 2012)

_What language is that, fused-sentence-faggot-rap?

Eat shit, in traffic, *Punkotardy*.  Do it, today!_


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 25, 2012)

Bugnuts still has no fucking clue what he is trying to talk about, I see.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 25, 2012)

_You're here, so I talk about you, RightWingFaggotThatRunsWordsTogether.

I'll go get a scientific report or study, before you do it.  You haven't linked, once.  You haven't loaded a graph.  You are a *PUNK*, and you're *TARDY*.  I know you didn't forget, hiow you are some faggot, since the 'fagot' holds the 'faces,' in place._


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 25, 2012)

I see the illiterate loon still hasn't taken his meds.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 26, 2012)

July 24th: 7,025,781km2
July 25th: 6,977,813km2
July 26th: 6,820,313km2(prelim)


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 26, 2012)

_Here's the jpgs from NASA, 1980 and 2012:_














_This is from the NASA link, which O.R. or somebody earlier pasted._


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 10, 2012)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 10, 2012)

Getting destroyed! 

7-1






8-4





8-9


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 10, 2012)

8-9





Last year at this time





two years ago at this time 





I'm a goddamn skeptic and I'll say that it's possible that the arctic will be *mostly ice free at the min within 5-8 years at this rate*. Look how the 3-5m ice has went away in the last 2 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2012)

O shit we're about 7-10 days ahead of 2007 at least. There's a fair chance we will have the record this year...Even with the huge cyclone over the arctic and the *shitty pattern...*


This isn't anywhere near 2007 in set up. The volume has caught up enough that even a shitty pattern will fall through the floor. Mostly 1-2 meter ice is what I'm saying.

By shitty pattern. I give you the ECMWF model from 3-6 days...See how much of the arctic is under that cyclone? That isn't a good melting pattern.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2012)

Gfs...VERY bad melt pattern. You could do little worse if you want a record, but here we're.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 12, 2012)

Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/





 The latest value : 5,219,688 km2 (August 12, 2012)


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 12, 2012)

There&#8217;s a new kid in town, blog-wise, showing maps of Arctic sea ice concentration and thickness, called apocalypse4real (seems to be an appropriate name). It shows that all the ice thicker than 6m is gone from the Arctic (click the graph for a larger, clearer view):

Ice thicker than 6m would show in black (but there isn&#8217;t any), red is 6m thick, dark blue is open water.

Furthermore Neven&#8217;s caution that the storm in the Arctic might wreak havoc with its sea ice seems to be premonitory. Both extent (from NSIDC) and area (from Cryosphere Today) have taken a nosedive lately, setting new record lows for this date (click either graph for a larger, clearer view):

(Cryosp)here today, gone tomorrow | Open Mind


Sea Ice Concentration


Dark Red = 100%

Dark Blue = 0%

https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4real/home/sea-ice-concentration-and-thickness-comparison

8-11 right hand side; This shows the arctic on a scale of 1 meter or less of sea ice. Unlike the one above that shows up to 6 meters. I was looking at another earlier today and there's at least 3 times as much thin(0-1.5 meter) ice to melt ice to melt out than 2007 remaining. We could go to 3.7-3.9 million sq this year...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 12, 2012)

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2







This supports the decrease in volume. This is what's important as the more the thickness of the ice becomes less=faster melt of the area. This is why even a bad weather pattern can cause records.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 12, 2012)

Mathew, did you watch the presentation by Professor Jennifer Francis?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

She is a meteoroligist and has some very interesting things to say.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Yep,

He's a loop of the ice sheet and thickness between the last month.
Cryosphere Today - Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere Animation


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Ice melts? In the summer?  Fuck!  When did that start?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Not like this

Peak in 1979






Let's be fair and put August 14th 1979 up!






Peak in 1980





Today a month before the peak!





How could any thinking human being not see that something huge has charged? You could drive a aircraft carrier through the charge. A change of nearly 4 million sq miles(8.5 million to 4.5 million miles).


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

All too many here cannot be considered thinking human beings.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

If I was a thinking human being, I'd wonder whether during the Med Warm Period (when we didn't have satellites to constantly SCARE US TO DEATH) whether the pictures would be any different.

Still not warm enough in Greenland to reach that point is it? 

YEAH --- it makes me uneasy.. But mostly because we need to take the blinders off and figure out WHY the stratosphere is COOLING. Gee -- according to that moldy link OldieRocks keeps posting, the ONE PLACE where Arhenius's prediction SHOULD be coming true is in the higher reaches of the atmosphere where not much water vapor exists. 

But yet -- you can't get a straight answer about why the models now predict upper atmos cooling. And UAH and others have MEASURED temperature regulation in the thermosphere (the literal vent at the top of the atmos) that FAR EXCEEDS anyone's expectations. I've TRIED to get an answer as to whether AGW theory predicts Stratosphere warming or cooling -- does anyone here KNOW the definitive answer? I'd appreciate that.

LOTS we don't know and that SOME won't admit we don't know..


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Flatulance, you dumb fuck, one prediction of a warming globe caused by GHGs is a cooling stratosphere. Look it up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming

Posted on 1 December 2010 by Bob Guercio
This post has been revised at Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised 
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. This paper will explain the mechanism involved by considering a model of a fictitious planet with an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and an inert gas such as nitrogen at pressures equivalent to those on earth. This atmosphere will have a troposphere and a stratosphere with the tropopause at 10 km. The initial concentration of carbon dioxide will be 100 parts per million (ppm) and will be increased instantaneously to 1000 ppm and the solar insolation will be 385.906 watts/meter2. Figure 1 is the IR spectrum from a planet with no atmosphere and Figures 2 and 3 represent the same planet with levels of CO2 at 100 ppm and 1000 ppm respectively. These graphs were generated from a model simulator at the website of Dr. David Archer, a professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and edited to contain only the curves of interest to this discussion. The parameters were chosen in order to generate diagrams that enable the reader to more easily understand the mechanism discussed herein.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

So 1979 but then again in 2012?

If its Global Warming, shouldn't there have been bigger melts since 1979?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

THen WHY OldieRocks does the link you've posted THOUSANDS of times say this.. 




> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer &#8212; which was far harder to calculate.
> 
> ...



Say HUH? I thought GW predicted a COOLING in the upper atmos also.. But this kind of conflicting garbage is all over the place to explain the spectral overlap between CO2 and Water Vapor and why it still drives the majority of Climate Change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclimate1449.html



Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet
Alexander Robinson,
Reinhard Calov
& Andrey Ganopolski
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
 Nature Climate Change 2,429&#8211;432(2012)doi:10.1038/nclimate1449Received 16 February 2011 Accepted 13 February 2012 Published online 11 March 2012 



Article tools
Print
Email
Download citation
Order reprints
Rights and permissions

Share/bookmark














Recent studies have focused on the short-term contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea-level rise, yet little is known about its long-term stability. The present best estimate of the threshold in global temperature rise leading to complete melting of the ice sheet is 3.1&#8201;°C (1.9&#8211;5.1&#8201;°C, 95% confidence interval) above the preindustrial climate1, determined as the temperature for which the modelled surface mass balance of the present-day ice sheet turns negative. Here, using a fully coupled model, we show that this criterion systematically overestimates the temperature threshold and that the Greenland ice sheet is more sensitive to long-term climate change than previously thought. We estimate that the warming threshold leading to a monostable, essentially ice-free state is in the range of 0.8&#8211;3.2&#8201;°C, with a best estimate of 1.6&#8201;°C. By testing the ice sheet&#8217;s ability to regrow after partial mass loss, we find that at least one intermediate equilibrium state is possible, though for sufficiently high initial temperature anomalies, total loss of the ice sheet becomes irreversible. Crossing the threshold alone does not imply rapid melting (for temperatures near the threshold, complete melting takes tens of millennia). However, the timescale of melt depends strongly on the magnitude and duration of the temperature overshoot above this critical threshold.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> THen WHY OldieRocks does the link you've posted THOUSANDS of times say this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot help you understand that which you refuse to understand.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Global Warming...taking a vaycay, chillaxing in the Florida Keys since '79


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So 1979 but then again in 2012?
> 
> If its Global Warming, shouldn't there have been bigger melts since 1979?



Your logic escapes me, but there will be much bigger melts in the near future, as in before 2030.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Yes yes cooling and warming all because of AGW

of course!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So 1979 but then again in 2012?
> ...



Yes because your models, which totally got the ocean sink wrong, say so.

If it worked as you say (and we know it doesn't) the melt in 1980 should have been greater than in 1979 because more CO2 was added and we all know that's the one and only variable that causes Manmade climate disruption change warmercoolering


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Professor Jennifer Francis gave a wonderful presentation of exactly how that works. That you will not watch it, and even if your did, you would not understand it, is your problem, not mine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Professor Jennifer Francis gave a wonderful presentation of exactly how that works. That you will not watch it, and even if your did, you would not understand it, is your problem, not mine.



How what works? How you have fundamental flaws in your assumptions and your models don't change?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
> 
> Posted on 1 December 2010 by Bob Guercio
> This post has been revised at Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
> Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. This paper will explain the mechanism involved by considering a model of a fictitious planet with an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide and an inert gas such as nitrogen at pressures equivalent to those on earth. This atmosphere will have a troposphere and a stratosphere with the tropopause at 10 km. The initial concentration of carbon dioxide will be 100 parts per million (ppm) and will be increased instantaneously to 1000 ppm and the solar insolation will be 385.906 watts/meter2. Figure 1 is the IR spectrum from a planet with no atmosphere and Figures 2 and 3 represent the same planet with levels of CO2 at 100 ppm and 1000 ppm respectively. These graphs were generated from a model simulator at the website of Dr. David Archer, a professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and edited to contain only the curves of interest to this discussion. The parameters were chosen in order to generate diagrams that enable the reader to more easily understand the mechanism discussed herein.



*I don't WANT a fictious planet with no other constituent gases or particles than CO2 and Nitrogen. *I want to know how the Combined absorption of WATER VAPOR and CO2 does not saturate in the LOWER atmos and CO2 increases in the UPPER atmos (where there IS no water vapor) don't matter.

One of blog comments pretty well sums up the frustration I'm describing.. 



> For one thing, I'm not sure that there even would be a stratosphere (ie with temperatures increasing with height) if there was no oxygen/ozone in the atmosphere as there is in your model. So it may not make sense to talk about a warmer lower atmosphere causing an even cooler upper atmosphere in such a simplified case.
> 
> Also, I understand that other variations, in water vapour, volcanic aerosols, chlorofluorocarbons and methane concentrations, can cause temperature changes in the stratosphere.
> 
> Having said that, I don't actually doubt that rising CO2 does result in a cooling stratosphere, I'm just struggling to understand how exactly and by how much.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

1979 to 2012 is 33 years. Definately time to establish a very strong trend. In spite of some year to year variation, the trend is down by about 9% per decade, and that trend is accelerating. That is the surface cover trend, the volume trend is much steeper.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
> ...



Crap, Flatulance, try reading some scientific material from peer reviewed journals, instead of blogs. One should seek knowledge from those more intelligent or knowledgable than themselves, not misinformation from those equally ignorant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You MF'ing MORON!!! You just wasted my time sending me to a FUCKING BLOG SITE where the AUTHOR of the explanation admits in the Discussion section... 



> I'm saying a lot here *but I must stress that I am very much an amateur at this and may not be totally correct*.I'm also a bit tired and may not be writing very clearly.
> 
> Bob



And YOU have the BALLS to tell me read PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE!! 

Hopeless Hypocrit.. And Pathetic... I need a SERIOUS answer....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > THen WHY OldieRocks does the link you've posted THOUSANDS of times say this..
> ...



So let me get this straight. You post that link a THOUSAND Times, but you can't explain the discrepancy I produced and you don't WANT to discuss it? Do I have that right? 

And you're gonna CONTINUE to shove that same link at anybody that isn't a wholesale believer.. Right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

So Mathew ----- Certainly we have maps of existing Arctic Ice by age. So WHERE is the reconstruction map of the Medieval Warm Period? Should exist right? Can't find one.. Although I thought I saw it in that video lecture that Old Rocks posted as I breezed thru there. 

Would be cool to compare that to the satellite pix..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> So Mathew ----- Certainly we have maps of existing Arctic Ice by age. So WHERE is the reconstruction map of the Medieval Warm Period? Should exist right? Can't find one.. Although I thought I saw it in that video lecture that Old Rocks posted as I breezed thru there.
> 
> Would be cool to compare that to the satellite pix..



The story in my next post says we're below the medieval. A .4c temperature increase caused 4 million square miles of ice decrease between 1979-2012 is all we can be sure of. 

Still this is a mind blowing charge.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

> new study in the science journal Nature says that arctic sea ice has reached the lowest levels of any time period over the past 1,450 years, dipping even lower than the sea ice losses of the Medieval Warm Period. The current sea ice losses have already lasted longer than any other decline during the study period.
> 
> "When we look at our reconstruction, we can see that the decline that has occurred in the last 50 years or so seems to be unprecedented for the last 1,450 years," said Christian Zdanowicz of the Geological Survey of Canada, one of the study's co-authors, said Wednesday in an interview with the Globe and Mail.
> 
> ...



Arctic Sea Ice Dips Below Levels of Medieval Warm Period - Polar Bears International


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2012)

Maybe that paper they referenced has charts. But it's late and I just adopted a POLAR BEAR!

Her name is Cleo.. I bought her a raft with a solar powered fan....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

Heres the reg link Arctic sea ice in longest decline seen over past 1,450 years: study - The Globe and Mail

I can't find the study. Will look.



Well, heres a graph loop of volume in the last 30 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2012)

found it.

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

 Nature 479,509&#8211;512(24 November 2011)doi:10.1038/nature10581Received 24 December 2010 Accepted 21 September 2011 Published online 23 November 2011 
Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that&#8212;although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century&#8212;both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.






http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html?mid=5374


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2012)

There isn't a worse Melting pattern then this. August 5th through 10th pressure pattern.











Look how freaking thin the eastern Russian side is. WOW. That ice out by the straight is also fucked. Less than .25 of a meter.


Finally JAX comparing 2012, 2011, 2007





The Attament below is this year compared to 2007.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2012)

A summer storm in the Arctic

August 14, 2012
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.

Overview of conditions


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 13, 2012 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.9 million square miles), 450,000 square kilometers (173,745 square miles) below the same day in 2007. The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.9 million square miles). This is 2.81 million square kilometers (1.08 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 450,000 square kilometers (173,745 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. Low extent for the Arctic as a whole is driven by extensive open water on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, the Beaufort Sea, and&#8212;due to rapid ice loss over the past two weeks&#8212;the East Siberian Sea. Ice is near its normal (1979 to 2000) extent only off the northeastern Greenland coast. Ice near the coast in eastern Siberia continues to block sections of the Northern Sea Route. The western entrance to the Northwest Passage via McClure Strait remains blocked.

Conditions in context


Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of August 13, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for the previous five years. 2012 is shown in blue, 2011 in orange, 2010 in pink, 2009 in navy, 2008 in purple, and 2007 in green. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

The average pace of ice loss since late June has been rapid at just over 100,000 square kilometers (38,000 square miles) per day. However, this pace nearly doubled for a few days in early August during a major Arctic cyclonic storm, discussed below. Unlike the summer of 2007 when a persistent pattern of high pressure was present over the central Arctic Ocean and a pattern of low pressure was over the northern Eurasian coast, the summer of 2012 has been characterized by variable conditions. Air tempertures at the 925 hPa level (about 3000 feet above the ocean surface) of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2012 average have been the rule from central Greenland, northern Canada, and Alaska northward into the central Arctic Ocean. Cooler than average conditions (1 to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) were observed in a small region of eastern Siberia extending into the East Siberian Sea, helping explain the persistence of low concentration ice in this region through early August.

The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012


Figure 3. This subsection of the surface weather analysis from the Canadian Meteorological Centre for August 6, 2012 (at 0600 Greenwich Mean Time) shows a very strong cyclone over the central Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. The isobars (lines of equal pressure) are very tightly packed around the low pressure system, indicating strong winds. Greenland is on the right side of the figure while Canada is at the bottom.

Credit: Canadian Meteorological Centre 
High-resolution image 

A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.


Figure 4. These maps of sea ice concentration from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) passive microwave sensor highlight the very rapid loss of ice in the western Arctic (northwest of Alaska) during the strong Arctic storm. Magenta and purple colors indicate ice concentration near 100%; yellow, green, and pale blue indicate 60% to 20% ice concentration.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy IUP Bremen 
High-resolution image 

Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.

However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2012)

Thanks for posting this but rw's have their heads stuck up their butts way too far to ever understand anything this complex. 

After all, the Rs have said they are against any and all education and most recently, against critical thought. 

Says it all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Thanks for posting this but rw's have their heads stuck up their butts way too far to ever understand anything this complex.
> 
> After all, the Rs have said they are against any and all education and most recently, against critical thought.
> 
> Says it all.



Any time you're ready  partisian hack -- there's a solution for your Global Warming (assuming CO2 is the problem) -- and that's 240 new nuclear plants to power the grid and charge your EVs.. 

You just let the RW engineers and scientists when you're ready to FIX the problem.. We'll get right on it...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2012)

Right wing scientists and engineers, all 30 of them?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 15, 2012)




----------



## polarbear (Aug 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Professor Jennifer Francis gave a wonderful presentation of exactly how that works. That you will not watch it, and even if your did, you would not understand it, is your problem, not mine.



Your problem is that either your head is up your own ass or up "experts" like Jennifer Francis.
Here is a much better explanation:
Arktis: Sturm lässt Eis am Nordpol verschwinden - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *Riesensturm lässt Nordpol-Eis schmelzen*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Translation:
Natural phenomena that "melted" the ice..
1.) Ice breaking up due to wind (and tidal)
2.) Fractured ice is pushed by the winds into warmer regions
3.) The northern oscillation "NAO" brings warm air with each cycle
4.) The "arctic di-pole" which is the pressure differential between North America and Siberia is the largest factor concerning arctic temperatures.


same article


> These factors were the same that were responsible when the *arctic ice cover and temperatures **were the same during the 1930`s as they are today*
> *a**nd that 5000 years ago the ice cover was only a fraction of what it is today*


*Guess what..these trees I photographed when I was on Greenland and Ellesmere Island...:*





They have been carbon dated to be between *5000 and 9000 years old !*



and:
Scientists demand the disclosure of "spy" satellite data due to a lack of reliable data from conventional satellites which are unable to measure ice thickness..*.but worse, present a few scattered melt water ponds as huge areas of open ocean...!!!

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel


> It is known in Germany for its distinctive, academic writing style and its large volume&#8212;a standard issue may run 200 pages or more. Typically, it has a content to advertising ratio of 2:1. As of 2010[update], *Der Spiegel was employing the equivalent of 80 full-time fact checkers,* which the _Columbia Journalism Review_ called *"most likely the world's largest fact checking operation*".[4]


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2012)

An explanation of Cryosat for the scientifically challenged among us.

BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 15, 2012)

2012	8	3	6.06293	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120803_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	4	6.06299	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120804_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	5	5.87559	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120805_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	6	5.81533	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120806_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	7	5.67377	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120807_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	8	5.47461	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120808_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	9	5.23462	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120809_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	10	5.24234	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120810_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	11	5.09222	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120811_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	12	5.00511	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120812_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	13	4.89798	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120813_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	14	4.83851	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120814_f17_nrt_n.bin


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Arctic Ocean contributes to Arctic amplification by losing heat to atmosphere when sea ice retreats

Heat budget of the upper Arctic Ocean under a warming climate &#8211; Graham & Vellinga (2012)
 Abstract: &#8220;The heat budget of the upper Arctic Ocean is examined in an ensemble of coupled climate models under idealised increasing CO2 scenarios. All of the experiments show a strong amplification of surface air temperatures but a smaller increase in sea surface temperature than the rest of the world as heat is lost to the atmosphere as the sea-ice cover is reduced. We carry out a heat budget analysis of the Arctic Ocean in an ensemble of model runs to understand the changes that occur as the Arctic becomes ice free in summer. We find that as sea-ice retreats heat is lost from the ocean surface to the atmosphere contributing to the amplification of Arctic surface temperatures. Furthermore, heat is mixed upwards into the mixed layer as a result of increased upper ocean mixing and there is increased advection of heat into the Arctic as the ice edge retreats. Heat lost from the upper Arctic Ocean to the atmosphere is therefore replenished by mixing of warmer water from below and by increased advection of warm water from lower latitudes. The ocean is therefore able to contribute more to Arctic amplification.&#8221;
 Citation: Tim Graham and Michael Vellinga, Climate Dynamics, 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1454-5.

AGW Observer


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

The arctic cyclone spread the ice out for a couple of days, now it is melting even more rapidly.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> An explanation of Cryosat for the *scientifically challenged* among us.
> 
> BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice



Which is the category that describes you best.
Is that supposed to be a response to :


> Eine schlechte Datenlage erschwert die Prognosen: Wissenschaftler forderten bereits die Herausgabe der Daten von Spionagesatelliten, um den Wandel am Nordpol besser zu dokumentieren. Doch Taupfützen auf dem Eis gaukeln Satelliten mitunter offenes Meer vor, wo eigentlich noch Eis liegt. Ein weiteres Manko: *Satelliten messen lediglich die Oberfläche des Eises*; die Dicke der Schollen kennen Forscher nur aus Messungen von vor Ort.


That the conventional *satellites can only measure the surface ice* but are not able to measure ice thickness...
Even the "scientifically" challenged should at least be able to read (in English) that BBC article and realize:
BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice


> *How to measure sea-ice thickness from space*


That this is exactly what the article I quoted said...that conventional satellites can`t measure ice thickness...only the ice above the waterline...!!!....and not the rest. Are you that "challenged" that you don`t know the meaning of "*Average ice thickness about 2.5 meters*"...???...and that was "determined" by drilling a few holes  *and not by satellite:*





*During summer ....!!!!*
(else there would not be daylight)
*
Also have you ever wondered how far from "home base" you can get with a snow mobile...*
I`ve been up there and these guys who drill into the ice stay on our base...so I do know how far they did go out...*max 30 km...!!!*
and the rest of the huge area is "averaged"
*I even recognize the hills in the background...it`s called the "Crystal Mountain Range"*




Same article:


> For Cryosat, it is another illustration of its capability. Radar satellites have traditionally struggled to discern the detail in the steep slopes and ridges that mark the edges of ice sheets,


So *before that,* on *what EXACTLY*  was the data which was used for all these  trend graphs based..???

*Short answer...the usual "climatology averaging"...!!*


> Cryosat found the volume (area multiplied by thickness) of sea ice in the central Arctic in March 2011 to have been 14,500 cubic kilometres.         This figure is very similar to that suggested by PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System), an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume, and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely.


The entire exercise is (as usual) to re-structure faulty data in order to "prove" that all prior publications & the "computer model" which was used to appear as  credible...:


> Cryosat's principal investigator, Prof *Duncan Wingham* - formerly of UCL but now chief executive of the UK's National *Environment Research Council *- summed up:...blah blah blah





> Duncan Wingham is Professor of Climate Physics at University College London, and was the first Director of the Centre for Polar Observation* & Modelling.* Wikipedia


So what else is new...????
The BBC does NOT EMPLOY full time fact checkers and the entire article is simply regurgitates Wingham`s and other GW alarmists latest PR crap.
*But I`m glad this subject finally came up,.*..I have been waiting for it


> Radar satellites have traditionally struggled to discern the detail in the steep slopes and ridges that mark the edges of ice sheets, but the Esa spacecraft can recover far more information *thanks to a special interferometric observing mode that uses two antennas.*


Because if you were not so "scientifically challenged" and had even a vague idea how that works, then you would also realize what kind of crap this "back radiation" is...where almost 1/2 the IR is supposed to come back down,....*regardless of phase angle *and heat us up even more.
While the not so "scientifically challenged" have been using "*interferometric observing mode" *for decades.
EM-waves cancel out more and more, the more they get out of phase and at a phase angle of 180 deg they cancel 100%...every monochromator be that for phased array radar or in an optical instrument is based on that principle...but in "climatology" & these "computer models that physics law does not even exits.
The entire IR regardless  of the different phase angles of the emitting CO2 molecules is used in all these stupid "energy budgets"

By the way, You claim to be a millwright who works in Oregon...
but you posted here at ~7:15 am . You can`t be on night shift either because no matter which thread I read during the evening you are continuously "online" here...almost 24-but 100% 7..and you are not retired & on pension

Not only are you "scientifically challenged" but you are also a liar  and a to boot, you are parasite on society and don`t go to work to earn an honest living


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

LOL. Poor ol' Bi-Polar. Now he knows everybodies work schedule. Must be a hell of a hacker to find out all of that. 

The dumb ass doesn't seem to realize that to cover a 24/7 operation you have people working very non-standard schedules.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 16, 2012)

I listened to some guys that write books about global warming on NPR... I went into it with an open mind as this is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to but I can say now that it is 100% junk science.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?


So why don`t you show us how you can calculate from the "Freeboard" the ice thickness on a terrain that looks like that:










And with a ice density that varies wildly from top to bottom. Even "climatologists" know that the ice on top is not nearly as compacted and as dense as the lower layers.
*So please do show us your "calculation".*..
I guess not..because it takes a bit more than "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"
I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2012)

What`s taking You so long to answer a simple question so long. I left my PC parked on this web page went outside cut the front lawn and You still can`t answer if the level in the pool gos up or down. All you need to know is Archimedes to answer it.
You are even more retarded than that cat:






So think twice before you try fuck around with me and all you got are idiotic left-wing-shit-for-brains "smart" remarks


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 16, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > An explanation of Cryosat for the *scientifically challenged* among us.
> ...


Oh PoopBrain, you are such a demented retard. Cryosat is not a "_conventional satellite_". It was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.

*Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted*

Published 13 August 2012
(excerpts)

*Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps. Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year. This rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by polar scientists and suggests that global warming, triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions, is beginning to have a major impact on the region. In a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes.

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time. For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six metres in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three metres. "Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected," said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analysed. "Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water."

The consequences of losing the Arctic's ice coverage, even for only part of the year, could be profound. Without the cap's white brilliance to reflect sunlight back into space, the region will heat up even more than at present. As a result, ocean temperatures will rise and methane deposits on the ocean floor could melt, evaporate and bubble into the atmosphere. Scientists have recently reported evidence that methane plumes are now appearing in many areas. Methane is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas and rising levels of it in the atmosphere are only likely to accelerate global warming. And with the disappearance of sea ice around the shores of Greenland, its glaciers could melt faster and raise sea levels even more rapidly than at present.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> I listened to some guys that write books about global warming on NPR... I went into it with an open mind as this is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to but I can say now that it is 100% junk science.



So, you listened to some guys on the radio, no names stated, vague subject stated as global warming, and decide it is all junk science? Ever hear of research? Using valid sources for that research? Do you understand what peer reviewed scientific journals are?

AGW Observer

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2012)

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 causes forest fires.
> 
> Old Rocks said so.



Warmer arctic=northward jet stream as the pressure gradient isn't as sharp between the pole and the equator. Did you see that 960's arctic ocean storm? That wouldn't have occurred 40 years ago the way it did. 

A nor'easter a like storm. 

Weather patterns charge on a planet that's warmer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2012)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 causes forest fires.
> ...



Uh, and that's because CO2 went from 360ppm to 370?

Are you sure?


----------



## tjvh (Aug 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 causes forest fires.
> 
> Old Rocks said so.



I'm so glad I only smoke indoors.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2012)

When you Warmers are wrong and outright lying about "Ocean acidification", "dirty laundry", "Mike's nature trick", and "hide the decline", it's impossible to take your stupid "20PPM of CO2 is melting the polar ice caps" theory seriously


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you Warmers are wrong and outright lying about "Ocean acidification", "dirty laundry", "Mike's nature trick", and "hide the decline", it's impossible to take your stupid "20PPM of CO2 is melting the polar ice caps" theory seriously



According to a recent post by Stu Ostro, The 500 mb heights with the deep Arctic cyclone tied the record for
 lowest Northern hemisphere 500 mb heights during this time of year.

Recent #Arctic #cyclone http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78808 had 500 mb hts which tied for record lowest at this time of year


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.



Yep, as it no longer matters the wind direction as much as the fact it is just being moved. To thin.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.


 *Isn`t that typical..!!! 
*This morning you wrote:



Old Rocks said:


> The arctic cyclone spread the ice out for a couple of days, now it is melting even more rapidly.
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area



And now you say:"Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it"
 How about this one:


Old Rocks said:


> Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?



Hey it`s after 21:00 and you still can`t even answer:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5820613-post164.html


> "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"
> I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
> If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
> The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
> I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks


What`s the matter? Can`t your friends who chimed in to bury that with almost 2 new pages help you answer that..?
I guess not! But the chief retard in your "friend circle" said I believe it was something like:
"Cryosat  was specifically designed to measure ice thickness."...before my ignore list settings zapped him out after I logged in.
Holy shit this guy is even dumber than you and doesn`t know the difference between contour Radar and surface penetrating RADAR which only Milsats have because of the *much larger power requirement*.*..supplied by nuclear batteries...and no civilian satellite has any on board*
The only innovation on that satellite is the dual antenna interferometer because before that they could not measure the satellite to ground distance on the steep slopes and other rough contours.
Anyway I`m still waiting for you to tell me how Archimedes can help you with this problem...:







That`s when you who is a self proclaimed expert and not "scientifically challenged" said:



Old Rocks said:


> Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?



Then I said:


> With a surface like that...
> *So please do show us your "calculation".*..
> I guess not..because it takes a bit more than "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"
> I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
> ...


Now you and the other moron who, like you,  can`t take it when somebody calls him what you & he call everybody else, figure you can change the debate to ""Cryosat  was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.".

So, according to Archimedes does the level in the basin go up or down if you throw a rock overboard.??????

Can`t find it with Google..? Or are you still waiting for somebody to post it on "Yahoo best Answer"...
I`ll check again tomorrow maybe you found somebody by then who "has heard of Archimedes"


----------



## Liability (Aug 16, 2012)

In a related vein:

I hadn't imbibed this week.  But I had a lousy day so I decided to suck down a small scotch.

Not even two fingers and three medium size ice cubs.

Well, I kid you not:  Those ice cubes HAVE been MELTING!






I blame Booooooosh!


----------



## Liability (Aug 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




It sounds small when you put it like that.  


But when you REALLY examine it, 


you bust out laughing and say, "Shit.  That really IS fucking small."


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2012)

polarbear said:


> ...something like:
> "*Cryosat  was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.*"...before my ignore list settings zapped him out after I logged in.
> Holy shit this guy is even dumber than you and doesn`t know the difference between contour Radar and surface penetrating RADAR which only Milsats have because of the *much larger power requirement*.*..supplied by nuclear batteries...and no civilian satellite has any on board*
> The only innovation on that satellite is the dual antenna interferometer because before that they could not measure the satellite to ground distance on the steep slopes and other rough contours.


LOLOLOLOL......oh poopbrain, soooo sure that you know everything and sooooo sure that, based on what you think you know, all of those scientists must be dead wrong.....LOLOLOLOL......you are definitely a poster child for the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.....you poor deluded retard.....

*ESA and NASA join forces to measure Arctic sea ice
European Space Agency* 
4 April 2012
(excerpts)

*Marking another remarkable collaborative effort, ESA and NASA met up over the Arctic Ocean this week to perform some carefully coordinated flights directly under CryoSat orbiting above. The data gathered help ensure the accuracy of ESAs ice mission. The aim of this large-scale campaign was to record sea-ice thickness and conditions of the ice exactly along the line traced by ESAs CryoSat satellite orbiting high above. A range of sensors installed on the different aircraft was used to gather complementary information. These airborne instruments included simple cameras to get a visual record of the sea ice, laser scanners to clearly map the height of the ice, an ice-thickness sensor called EM-Bird along with ESAs sophisticated radar altimeter called ASIRAS and NASAs snow and Ku-band radars, which mimic CryoSats measurements but at a higher resolution.  

In orbit for two years, CryoSat carries the first radar altimeter of its kind to monitor changes in the thickness of ice. As with any Earth observation mission, it is important to validate the readings acquired from space. This involves comparing the satellite data with measurements taken in situ, usually on the ground and from the air. The teams of scientists from Europe, US and Canada expect that by pooling flight time and the results they will get a much-improved accuracy of global ice-thickness trends measured by CryoSat and NASAs IceSat. *

Copyright 2000 - 2012 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_












polarbear said:


> If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?


Good physics question but kind of tricky to answer with precision with just the info you've given, I'd say. 

If you have a boat in pool, the displacement that the boat creates in the water, or how far the boat sinks into the water, is what determines how much the water level in the pool will change. It is the total weight of the boat itself plus whatever is in it that determines how far it sinks into the water. If you take an unspecified random "_rock_" out of the boat and throw it into the pool, the boat will rise a bit proportional to the weight of the rock (not its volume) sending the water level down an amount proportional to the weight of the rock, but the pool of water will, at the same time rise an amount that is usually* proportional to the volume of the rock (not its weight). An exception*: some very light, low density volcanic rocks actually float on water and don't displace their full volume. But, even ignoring those and just looking at the range between a larger, higher volume rock made of some lighter variety of rock, and a smaller, higher density rock that is mostly metal alloys, you could have rocks that weighed the same but had very different volumes and thus displaced different volumes of water in the pool. Thus, without knowing more about the "_rock_", it is hard to say just what the water level in the pool would do precisely. In general it shouldn't change much since the removal of the weight from the boat, thus raising it and lowering the water level, is roughly offset by the water level rise produced by throwing the rock into the lake. That balance is not perfect though for the reasons I discussed above.

Your "tricky" question has very little to do with Archimedes and the principle named after him and pretty near nothing to do with the topic of this thread. It would have been interesting to see what answer you would have given to the question before seeing mine. Something absolute, I'm sure, with no awareness of the issue of the volume of a rock vs. the weight of a rock in relation to its displacement in a boat vs. its displacement when submerged in the pool.






polarbear said:


> Now you and the other moron who, like you,  can`t take it when somebody calls him what you & he call everybody else, figure you can change the debate to ""*Cryosat  was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.*".


The topic of the thread is *"Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!"*, you poor retard, and you say _we're_ changing the topic of the debate by talking about a satellite that is orbiting specifically to study and measure the ice??? LOLOLOLOL......what a dimwit you are, poopbrain.....


BTW, it is not very surprising to hear that you have to put me on ignore. Charlatans and denier cultists like you don't like the light of truth and scientific fact thrown on your ignorant BS, misinformation and lies so you run and hide and pretend to yourself that no one has debunked your nonsense (repeatedly). Like ostriches with their heads in the sand, trying, futilely, to deny reality. And you wonder why we call you deniers and consider you to be on a par with the Flat Earth Society. You poor brainwashed halfwitted dupe.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 17, 2012)

Ray...........I do believe you've been pwned by Polar with this Archimedes Puzzle here...........

Interesting..........in terms of the science, its the most compelling case for proving that the alarmist case is just highly ideological.........a blind acceptance of anything and everything pushed by the IPCC and the Royal Society.


weak


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 17, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > ...something like:
> ...







.............not sure if you have picked up on it after over a year, but nobody takes your shit seriously s0n!!! Every 4 or 5 days or so, you post up the same exact information.........and then of course, the rants ( see below). But we do enjoy the entertainment aspect s0n!!


----------



## daveman (Aug 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.



What meteorologists present is called "weather".  

Decades of weather is climate.  

You remember what's happened after every winter storm?  AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap.  AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.  

So the weather now doesn't count, either.  You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.


----------



## Liability (Aug 17, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?
> ...



That isn't particularly difficult.  I got it (almost) instantly.

Are you telling me that Old Crock still can't answer it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
> ...



Dumb fuck. Here is a real scientist discussing exactly the kinds of events that we are presently seeing, and the relationship to decreasing ice and climate change.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2012)

LOL Posting the same stupid video

LOL

That's "Science"?

LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2012)

If you're going to post an 1+hour video post one worth watching Dumbass

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikbQ4lThJGo]Glenn Gould 1932 - 1982 Bach The Well-Tempered Clavier. Book I Preludes And Fugues 1-24.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Aug 17, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL Posting the same stupid video
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...



If the video is stupid shit, then repeating it makes it brilliant.

Can I have a consensus?

amen.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



He won`t, but claims he can figure out with the simple Archimedes prinziple how thick the ice is from the freeboard data that the new cryosat gathers.

Seeing that the ice doesn`t even have the same density from top to bottom I should have asked him to tell me how much copper is in a penny if it weighs X grams in air and Y grams when submerged in water. But he might be able to find an example of that somewhere on the internet because Archimedes did it with gold and it`s not exactly a feat of intelligence to do it with a copper penny.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > LOL Posting the same stupid video
> ...




Here is another "brilliant" piece of stupid shit "OldRocks" posted just a little while ago:



Old Rocks said:


> The arctic cyclone spread the ice out for a couple of days, now it is melting even more rapidly.
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area



And shortly after he posted that:


Old Rocks said:


> Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it.



Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...tell me how you come to the "brilliant" deduction that a storm that broke up the ice should have slowed down the "melting".

What has a larger surface area? A solid  100 pound block of ice  or the chunks after you break up the block?

The amount of ice that warm air melts is minimal compared to the ice that the water below "melts". Why do you think ice bergs roll over?


That happens even in the winter when the air temperatures are brutally cold...but it`s kinda hard to make a video when it`s dark 24/7

I`ll give You a hint...roll out your bike,...we know you hate regular truckers... load it up and see what "top-heavy" means.




13 die as overloaded bike falls off bridge - timesofmalta.com


> Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 09:02
> *13 die as overloaded bike falls off bridge*
> 
> Thirteen people were killed and seven others injured when an overloaded three-wheel motorcycle crashed off a bridge in south-east China, state media said today.


"Enviro" tourists trying to "document" the "shrinking ice" are equally stupid:
Iceberg tsunami video: Wave nearly takes out a tourist boat in Greenland - Hartford Pop Culture | Examiner.com


> Iceberg tsunami video: Wave nearly takes out a tourist boat in Greenland
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3K5HY5RnE&feature=player_embedded


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...



Hey dumbass, you're the one who is too stupid to understand the "Archimedies puzzle".


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 17, 2012)

2007 pressure pattern. A great pattern!





2012...Shitty melt season. Could explain the record melt in greenland.


----------



## Liability (Aug 17, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...
> ...



What, pray tell, is YOUR brilliant understanding of that "game?"


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



I already posted it, dumbass. Try to keep up.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2012)

2012 is going to shatter the record low for Arctic sea ice extent. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. It's nearly there now, with a full month to go. Depending how you measure it, it may have already busted the record. This is good news for denialists, as this winter they'll be able to point to record amounts of refreeze, thus disproving AGW theory. And I only wish I was joking about that, but denialist logic really is that dumb.

The interesting thing about that storm was how freakin' powerful it was. Hurricane strength. That's something we haven't seen before. That increased open water area is having an effect. A newly melted-open Arctic ocean may not be as friendly to shipping and drilling as we hope, if it regularly creates that kind of weather.

The other interesting is that for the old 2007 record, all conditions for melt were perfect all summer long. The sun was out, and the wind was constantly blowing the ice southeast past Greenland into warm water. This year, conditions for melt have only been so-so ... and the ice is _still_ melting like a mofo. Exactly as AGW theory predicted way ahead of time, and exacty the opposite of what the denialists have been predicting. 

That's why AGW theory has cred, because it has a long record of making correct predictions. Unlike the denialist junk science, which has a long history of getting everything wrong. But then, they're trying to twist reality and force it match the dogma of their political/religious cult, and that's an impossible task.


----------



## daveman (Aug 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Your definition of "real scientist" being, of course, "someone who dutifully parrots the AGW cult beliefs".

Less than compelling, really.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
> ...



The trend within sea ice and arctic temperatures has been changing over the span of decades. That's climate.


----------



## daveman (Aug 17, 2012)

Matthew said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Uh huh.  Is this data by the same dishonest set of alleged scientists?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Nope. Those guys, "_the same dishonest set of alleged scientists_", who you denier cult cretins like to quote, work for Exxon or Western Petroleum. This data regarding Arctic sea ice and temperature trends is from the real climate scientists. They're giving us the facts and, as we all know, facts are anathema to you deranged anti-science denier cult retards, so it is no wonder that you want to dismiss their findings. You're lost in a delusional fantasy world and you can't tell the shyt from the shinola.


----------



## daveman (Aug 17, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Uh huh.  The woman in your hour-plus video isn't a climate scientist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2012)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Dr. Jennifer Francis is a meteologists that teaches and conducts research at Rutgers University. 

SJSU Department of Meterorology

Dr. James Hansen is one of the foremost researcher in climate the world, a physicist whose specialty is atmospheric physics. 

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

And you? Well, you are an anomyous poster on an internet message board determined to display your willfull ignorance to the world.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 17, 2012)

mamooth said:


> 2012 is going to shatter the record low for Arctic sea ice extent. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. It's nearly there now, with a full month to go. Depending how you measure it, it may have already busted the record. This is good news for denialists, as this winter they'll be able to point to record amounts of refreeze, thus disproving AGW theory. And I only wish I was joking about that, but denialist logic really is that dumb.
> 
> The interesting thing about that storm was how freakin' powerful it was. Hurricane strength. That's something we haven't seen before. That increased open water area is having an effect. A newly melted-open Arctic ocean may not be as friendly to shipping and drilling as we hope, if it regularly creates that kind of weather.
> 
> ...



"Shatter all records"...really ?
Here take a look:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
2012 is the far right column... 12 524 531 km^2 on Jan 1,...show me a higher one ! (the -9999 is the sat-code for no data)
You can go down the entire 2012 column all the way to the middle of June way into the annual melting season and the 2012 ice extent is either higher than average or average,..*.but not below..*
Right now it`s 


> 4,801,250 km2 (August 17, 2012)


Because this particular storm over the Lincoln sea....and right away the freaks scream "climate change" ...how does that jive with your definitions :
Its cold today in Wagga WaggaWeather and climate are different | Grist


> *                             Its cold today in Wagga WaggaWeather and climate are different*
> 
> How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
> 
> ...





> The interesting thing about that storm was how *freakin' powerful* it was. *Hurricane strength*. That's something *we* haven't seen before.


So if it`s hot in the central U.S. then it`s "the climate" and if the entire arctic is below average for the entire time all the way up to middle of June then it was just "the weather in Wagga Wagga"..
Man are you guys ever getting twisted ! 

But that crap you just posted here..What  the hell are You talking about?
"Hurricane force wind..that`s something *we* haven`t seen before"
What do you mean by *"we"*..*.When were you up there?*
When the winds kick up on Ellesmere Island, Northern Greenland and over the Lincoln sea they are *ALWAYS HURRICANE FORCE.*
*Why do you think we are stringing all these ropes between the buildings*?







If you don`t hook up your harness you are gone..!!! for good...!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LWypbjvkfs"]Windstorm in Alert 1 - YouTube[/ame]

That`s why the approach to the northern most post on planet earth is littered with wrecks:




*And believe you me, it takes more than a little wind gust to bring down a Herc C-130...!!!

*Why don`t you go to AFB Trenton and ask for a ride up there during the winter.???..there is a good reason why everybody that does a tour of duty up there gets more credits as having  served in a battle zone.There is no "medi-vac" up there, just our own first aid ...!!. and that`s why you get a promotion in rank each time you complete a 6 mo tour of duty up there..same goes for AFB Thule,...so why don`t you sign up and go for it...*after that you can say "we"* but till then quit bullshitting!!!
!


----------



## daveman (Aug 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Meteorologists are not climate scientists.


Old Rocks said:


> Dr. James Hansen is one of the foremost researcher in climate the world, a physicist whose specialty is atmospheric physics.
> 
> NASA GISS: James E. Hansen


Hansen is a lying hack.  No wonder you worship him.


Old Rocks said:


> And you? Well, you are an anomyous poster on an internet message board determined to display your willfull ignorance to the world.


No, Roxy, I will NOT join your mindless cult.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2012)

polarbear said:


> 2012 is the far right column... 12 524 531 km^2 on Jan 1,...show me a higher one!



You understand it's not January 1 now, correct? When I'm speaking of record low ice levels _now_, it looks like a crazy evasion when you change the topic to January.

Now, I suggest you skip down your chart to Aug. 17 2012, which shows 4 801 250, very close to the record low. 

Also, on Aug 17 2012, the University of Bremen, which uses a slightly different way of measuring, shows an all-time record low for sea ice. I don't have the post count for urls yet, so stick an http in front of this, and a .html behind.

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/record-dominoes-1-uni-bremen-sea-ice-extent



> If you don`t hook up your harness you are gone..!!! for good...!!



So you're equating local strong winds to a hurricane-sized storm with hurricane-level barometric pressures. Um, no. There are crazy strong winds on Mount Washington all the time, but that's not a hurricane storm.

And I was too busy running nuclear reactors for the Navy to play on Greenland. Your "I'M A VET, SO I CAN BULLY YOU!" crap ain't gonna fly with this squid.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 17, 2012)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > 2012 is going to shatter the record low for Arctic sea ice extent. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. It's nearly there now, with a full month to go. Depending how you measure it, it may have already busted the record. This is good news for denialists, as this winter they'll be able to point to record amounts of refreeze, thus disproving AGW theory. And I only wish I was joking about that, but denialist logic really is that dumb.
> ...


Apparently your ability to interpret raw data is as pathetic as your general understanding of this whole issue. Funny how the scientists who study the Arctic say that the sea ice extent is poised to hit a new record low, surpassing the ice loss in 2007, and you claim that all of them are wrong and everything is normal. You poor retard.

*Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 
National Snow and Ice Data Center*
(excerpts)

*Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss.*





*Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 16, 2012 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the same day in 2007. The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data * 
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center





*Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of August 13, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for the previous five years. 2012 is shown in blue, 2011 in orange, 2010 in pink, 2009 in navy, 2008 in purple, and 2007 in green. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.*
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 

*The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012*

*A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.

Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.

However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.* 

_(Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)
_











polarbear said:


> Because this particular storm over the Lincoln sea....and right away the freaks scream "climate change" ...how does that jive with your definitions :
> &#8216;It&#8217;s cold today in Wagga Wagga&#8217;&#8211;Weather and climate are different | Grist
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you're too retarded to understand even something that simple. I knew your IQ was somewhere around room temperature but I didn't realize it was a room at the north pole.

In the first place, as the folks at the NSIDC said, that storm may not have been the only or even primary cause of the sudden ice loss although it certainly seems to have been a kind of trigger. Warm temperatures, warmer oceans and the previous loss of multi-year thicker sea ice have set the stage for this year's record ice loss.

One 'cold day in wagga wagga' vs. a *long term trend of declining sea ice extent and volume that is now hitting a new record low*.....a "_single data point_" vs. a multi-year multitude of data points......and you're idiotic enough to think that those two things are the same.....wooooweee you're stupid beyond belief.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 18, 2012)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 18, 2012)

Record dominoes 1: Uni Bremen sea ice extent



There are several scientific organisations that keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice cover and put out graphs to inform us of the amount of ice that is left. You can see most, if not all, of them on the ASI Graphs webpage.

I expect the record on most of these graphs to be broken in weeks to come. The first domino to fall is that of the University of Bremen sea ice extent graph, where the 2012 trend line seems to have broken last year's record:





Record dominoes 1: Uni Bremen sea ice extent - Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 18, 2012)

NSIDC is down to 4,639,910km2


----------



## polarbear (Aug 19, 2012)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > 2012 is the far right column... 12 524 531 km^2 on Jan 1,...show me a higher one!
> ...



*Did I tell You to look JUST AT JAN 01?*
I said:


> *2012 is the far right column... 12 524 531 km^2 on Jan 1,...show me a higher one !..
> **You can go down the entire 2012 column all the way to the middle of June way into the annual melting season and the 2012 ice extent is either higher than average or average,..**.but not below..*


*And so it is:*







Now to the rest of your gibberish



> *Now, I suggest you skip down your chart to Aug. 17 2012, *which shows 4 801 250, very close to the record low.


So what is that supposed to prove?
Aside from the fact *that a storm hit the region  on AUGUST the 8th and broke up the ice*.

And then this little gem:


> *So you're equating local strong winds *to a hurricane-sized storm with hurricane-level barometric pressures. Um, no. There are crazy *strong winds on Mount Washington* all the time, but that's not a hurricane storm.


"Hurricane level barometric pressures"...!!! *Define that for us will you.*
What`s a "hurricane level barometric pressure"...???
*Wind speed is solely determined by pressure DIFFERENTIAL over DISTANCE..!!!*

*So before you shoot your mouth off again show me that you can calculate the wind speed   for a pressure differential of 100 mbar over 1 kilometer...*
By the way the ice does not care what kind of wind it was that broke it up and 964 millibar is not an unusually low pressure at Lat 84 deg, especially not during summer...we had well below 1000 mbar`s even in January..
Here I`ll give you the phone number:
8th wing-command Trenton is (613) 392 2811... 2318 is the CFS Alert "O" then ask to talk to the "Met-tech" at  CFS Alert...I think it was "Andy"...Andreas Patersdorf who was the Met-Tech at our runway met-tech station that recorded the barometric pressure at that time.
While you are at it don`t forget to ask if that is "something *we* have never seen before"
*How else would you get wind speeds that are 70 and *>*..!!! miles per hour winds you dimwit?
*
Funny how you all chimed in here after "OldRocks" could not solve a simple Archimedes puzzle.
So now I`m waiting for you to show me the math what the wind speed for a 100 mbar`s pressure drop over 1000 meters is.
I`ll have my breakfast now and when I`m done you should be too....it`s simple math if you are not one of the "scientifically challenged" OldRocks keeps referring to


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 19, 2012)

It is day 229 of the year. We are down to 2.92 square km of ice by this chart;

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

That ties the record set in 2007 on day 250. So we have about 20 more days of melt. Pretty obvious that we will set a new record this year.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> It is day 229 of the year. We are down to 2.92 square km of ice by this chart;
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
> 
> That ties the record set in 2007 on day 250. So we have about 20 more days of melt. Pretty obvious that we will set a new record this year.



I had my breakfast and still no answer from the "expert" on "hurricane level barometric pressure"...
Again here is the CFS Alert Met-tech phone number:


> 8th wing-command Trenton is (613) 392 2811... 2318 is the CFS Alert "O" then ask to talk to the "Met-tech" at  CFS Alert


where he could find out if 964 mbar`s is something "we" have never seen there before
or the Archimedes question...
Well that`s okay. But haven`t you forgotten something else?
Like the usual name calling..since when are you so polite?
Yes it`s low and the melt season isn`t over yet, ~ 20 more days to go...that`s true also. But "climate change"...? How different is that from a "hot day in Waggawagga"..it all depends where you *start the trend graph. *Forget about Archimedes*,* tell me where *you stand *concerning 1800 -1900 A.D. and 9000 to 5000 B.C.and then explain what`s in almost every history book concerning arctic exploration + what Lt.Greely recorded and the trees ~ 500 miles south of the pole on Ellesmere & Greenland.

By the way if your comrade in arms is such an expert in meteorology,....since 2 years they allow "civies" to work on that base,...after they clear security.
Who knows he might like it, and after that I don`t mind at all if he says "we"...:

You may have noticed that the title is "Boxtop 2008"...*Take a good look how "warm" the SUMMER 2008 was *!!! The "Boxtops" (re-supply missions) start in April, but it was like that pretty much all summer long
Or was that "just another cold day in Waggawagga"..???
Before you say I`m bullshitting you about the summer 2008...:





http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/13/satellite-imagery-shows-artic-ice-still-unmelted/


> *Satellite Imagery Shows Arctic Ice Still Unmelted*
> 
> Posted on July 13, 2008 						by Anthony Watts
> This photo with 1 kilometer/pixel resolution was taken yesterday July 12th at 17:05 UTC:



And the Met-tech shack you see in the video is right at the shoreline of the Lincoln sea...the ice was still right to to shoreline as in the 2008 boxtop video when summer was over.!!!
And later GW climatologist "explained" that discrepancy "Oh yes but it was thinner"....according to estimates (using Archimedes maybe) while they had no way to actually determine that with the Cryosat they used at that time.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 19, 2012)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


No it isn't, you flaming retard. Why do you lie like that when the data is public and has been analyzed by experts. The 2012 ice extent starts off below average in January and only briefly gets even close to "_average_" in late April but then drops way below average throughout the whole rest of the year to date. It is below average, below the 2007 record lows and below all of the previous five years. Here's the relevant graphs from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of the premier sources for this kind of information. BTW poopbrain, since you seem do clueless about this, "_average_" on these graphs is the solid black line.





*Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of May 1, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for the previous five years. 2012 is shown in blue, 2011 in orange, 2010 in pink, 2009 in navy, 2008 in purple, and 2007 in green. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
*
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center





*Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of August 13, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for the previous five years. 2012 is shown in blue, 2011 in orange, 2010 in pink, 2009 in navy, 2008 in purple, and 2007 in green. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.*
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 

And BTW numbnuts, you've never given us your answer to your little "Archimedes puzzle". I showed how the question as you posed it didn't contain enough information for a precise answer. I bet you're still bumfuddled.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 19, 2012)

2010 on 8-18 thickness





2012 on 8-18 thickness





This is what we're talking about when we discuss volume. The thickness is going as fast as the extent.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 19, 2012)




----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Wind speed is solely determined by pressure DIFFERENTIAL over DISTANCE..!!!



Er, no. Not even close. That's a totally ridiculous statement.



> So before you shoot your mouth off again show me that you can calculate the wind speed   for a pressure differential of 100 mbar over 1 kilometer...



There is not nearly enough information presented there to answer the question. Much like the Archimedes question that you asked and then ran like a clucking chicken from, you look really stupid just for thinking you asked a valid question.



> Here I`ll give you the phone number:
> 8th wing-command Trenton is (613) 392 2811... 2318 is the CFS Alert "O" then ask to talk to the "Met-tech" at  CFS Alert...I think it was "Andy"...Andreas Patersdorf who was the Met-Tech at our runway met-tech station that recorded the barometric pressure at that time.



He'd probably also tell you to man up and stop running from the issues. Your experience of being really cold in Greenland means jack on this topic. Each time you bring it up, you're essentially screaming "I SURRENDER!".


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2012)

Well, by Cryosphere Today's figures, we have now gone below the minimum for 2007. And the direction of the curve is still downward. And 20 days still left in the normal melt period. Now the question is, how low this year, and will the freezup start at the normal time?

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## polarbear (Aug 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, by Cryosphere Today's figures, we have now gone below the minimum for 2007. And the direction of the curve is still downward. And 20 days still left in the normal melt period. Now the question is, how low this year, and will the freezup start at the normal time?
> 
> Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area



Nobody disputes that but the problem is that the Crysat Data before 2010 was flawed and the flaws were serious. That`s why (the very expensive!) CryoSat-2 was launched on 8 April 2010. Again don`t forget that CryoSat2 can not measure ice thickness. Like it`s predecessor it`s only a RADAR-altimeter with improvements:...all the other quotes listed are linked from the CrySat home page
ESA - CryoSat - The instruments



> CryoSat-2s primary payload is the Synthetic Aperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter (SIRAL), designed to meet the measurement requirements for ice-sheet elevation and sea-ice 'freeboard', which is the height protruding from the water.


And that was the problem with the previous CryoSat...but even with the new one...:


> Conventional radar altimeters send pulses at intervals long enough that the echoes are 'uncorrelated'; many such echoes can be averaged to reduce noise. At the typical satellite orbital speed of 7 km/s, the interval between pulses is about 500 microseconds.   However, the CryoSat altimeter sends a burst of pulses at an interval of only about 50 microseconds. The returning echoes are correlated and, by treating the whole burst together, the data processor can separate the echo into strips arranged across the track by exploiting the slight frequency shifts, caused by the Doppler effect, in the forward- and aft-looking parts of the beam.
> Each strip is about 250 m wide and the interval between bursts is arranged so that the satellite moves forward by 250 m each time. The strips laid down by successive bursts can therefore be superimposed on each other and averaged to reduce noise. This is known as the SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) mode.
> 
> The altimeter makes a measurement of the distance between the satellite and the surface. However, this measurement cannot be converted into the more useful measure of the height of the surface until the satellites position is accurately known.
> ...


Remember the 2008 discrepancy between Cryo-1 and what the visual Sat-pic showed for ice cover...It was "explained" that the ice thickness according to the previous Cryo was 67 cm thinner...*even though the Satellite Position can only be estimated within 50 cm with the new CryoSat2....
That`s exactly how Hansen screwed up...till an "ignorant denier" pointed that "little problem" out...
which is precisely the reason for the push to involve the Military....which has the technology to do that with centimeter accuracy...with their own "Milsats"...which is from where you get your GPS data 
*



> While some of the processed data are available almost immediately to the team monitoring how the mission is performing, the scientific users need accurate orbits and other environmental data to be able to fully exploit the altimeter measurements. Until these are available, which can take up to a month, the final data products have to wait.
> These great reductions in the area of sea ice in the middle of the summer are much worse than expected if we simply extrapolated from the previous trends. There are several factors involved: the prevailing winds have a great influence (floating ice can be simply blown out of the Arctic Ocean, passing Greenland and Iceland and disappearing into the Atlantic).   Thermodynamics is also playing a role: as the amount of ice reduces, more heat is absorbed by the ocean in summer, and consequently less ice formed by freezing in winter, accelerating the trend in reducing ice cover.
> While these reductions in the area of sea ice are readily observable using a variety of satellite remote-sensing techniques, there is only one practical way of converting this knowledge of sea-ice area into the amount of sea ice. We need information about the thickness of the ice, and the only way to measure that on a large scale is by satellite. This is where CryoSat comes in.
> 
> Apart from floating sea ice, the other characteristic manifestations of ice in polar regions are the ice caps: thick domes of ice resting on land, from relatively small islands up to the complete continent of Antarctica. The two largest, Antarctica itself and Greenland, are several kilometres thick and, at the summits, very cold.   Thus they may seem immune to the influence of a few degrees of global temperature rise. Indeed, prior to 2000 the indications were that these major ice caps were largely stable, at least in their interiors. The principal means of determining this was satellite altimetry. However, the capabilities of such instruments to measure change at the ice cap margins, where most change is expected, is limited by their design.


So I suggest You do what *real* Science does and instead of making alarming predictions with computer models which are notorious when it comes to flawed "calculations" which turn out by later admission having been no more than guestimates....wait till there is enough data to plot a *valid trend *with more accurate data.

That does not just apply to the sea ice, but also to the Greenland Glaciers:
Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus : Abstract : Nature Geoscience



> *Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus*
> 
> The recent marked retreat, thinning and acceleration of most of Greenland's outlet glaciers south of 70° N has increased concerns over Greenland's contribution to future sea level rise1, 2, 3, 4, 5. These dynamic changes seem to be parallel to the warming trend in Greenland, but the mechanisms that link climate and ice dynamics are poorly understood, and current numerical models of ice sheets do not simulate these changes realistically6, 7, 8. Uncertainties in the predictions of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet have therefore been highlighted as one of the main limitations in forecasting future sea levels9. Here we present a numerical ice-flow model that reproduces the observed marked changes in Helheim Glacier, one of Greenland's largest outlet glaciers. Our simulation shows that the ice acceleration, thinning and retreat begin at the calving terminus and then propagate upstream through dynamic coupling along the glacier. *We find that these changes are unlikely to be caused by basal lubrication through surface melt propagating to the glacier bed.* We conclude that tidewater outlet glaciers adjust extremely rapidly to changing boundary conditions at the calving terminus. Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.


And that was the claim till now...while none of the Greenland glaciers have crevices that go all the way down to the base.

Well I`m off now for a 2 month trip to Europe and don`t really care who writes what into this forum. It`s not as if people who make policy decisions or others who strive for more accurate data acquisition and how that should be done come here and  read the foul language rants that are posted here.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 20, 2012)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wind speed is solely determined by pressure DIFFERENTIAL over DISTANCE..!!!
> ...



Wind speed and spacing of isobars



> *WIND SPEED AND SPACING* *OF ISOBARS*
> Wind speed is also a reflection of isobaric spacing. After you have drawn your first complete isobar, the next one should more or less be parallel        to the first. How close or how far away it is from the first one can be correlated to the wind speed. The spacing of isobars is inversely proportional to the wind speed. In other words, the greater the wind speed, the smaller the spacing and vice versa. Some additional relationships also exist. l For a given wind speed, the spacing be-tween isobars decreases with increasing latitude. Table 7-2-1 shows the spacing of isobars, at 4-mb
> *Table 7-2-1.Geostrophic Wind Distance between Isobars* *over Ocean at 4-mb Intervals for Various Wind Speeds* *and Latitudes*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 20, 2012)

NSIDC 4,447,380 -109k km^2


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 20, 2012)

Record dominoes 3: Cryosphere Today SIA



There are several scientific organisations that keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice cover and put out graphs to inform us of the amount of ice that is left. You can see most, if not all, of them on the ASI Graphs webpage. I expect the record on most of these graphs to be broken in weeks to come.

After Uni Bremen sea ice extent and Arctic ROOS sea ice area another big domino has fallen with Cryosphere Today sea ice area:

And the close-up:

Larry Hamilton's graph:



Here are the numbers of all the minimums since 2005: 

&#8226;2005: 4.09 million square km
 &#8226;2006: 4.03 million square km
 &#8226;2007: 2.92 million square km
 &#8226;2008: 3.00 million square km
 &#8226;2009: 3.42 million square km
 &#8226;2010: 3.07 million square km
 &#8226;2011: 2.90 million square km
 &#8226;2012: 2.88 million square km (and running)

As usual, Jim Pettit has the details:


Though it happened 23 days earlier than it did last year, today's CT SIA value is already 27,281 km2 lower than last year's record (which itself only edged out the 2007 record by fewer than 15k km2). 17 days elapsed last year between the date the 3 million km2 mark was passed and the record was set; this year, that only took four days.

Over the course of the record--1979-2011--the average CT area loss from this day to minimum has been 521k km2. Based on a straight extrapolation from prior years, 2012 SIA would/could/almost certaionly will end up somewhere between 1.92 million and 2.77 million km2, with a mean minimum of 2.36 million km2.

Tomorrow DMI sea ice extent?
Record dominoes 3: Cryosphere Today SIA - Arctic Sea Ice

Some good stuff!
http://meteomodel.pl/index.php/arcticice

This year is kicking the living fucking hell out of 2007! It wouldn't surprise me if it went down to 3.8 million km this year based on noaa sea ice data official data.

Today 





August 19th 2007





August 19th 1990





August 19th 1979


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2012)

And the extent of the thicker ice has really decreased this year as compared to 2007.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2012)

polarbear said:


> even though the Satellite Position can only be estimated within 50 cm with the new CryoSat2....



Until the ground processing, when it becomes sub-centimeter. Just like every other satellite before it. This kind of satellite tracking is not anything new.



> That`s exactly how Hansen screwed up...till an "ignorant denier" pointed that "little problem" out...



I have no idea why Hansen got dragged into this. They seem to think he's dictator of NASA or something. 

Strangely, they also seem to think those scientists are a bunch of eggheads without common sense. Rest assured, all the scientists have always understood the importance of knowing the orbit down to the centimeter, from the instant they started designing the systems.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 21, 2012)

JAXA 8/21    4,481,719 -113k







NSIDC extent  4,334,890 -113k km^2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2012)

...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?

Ice melts in summer...color me shocked!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?
> 
> Ice melts in summer...color me shocked!



Could be for a muitipable of reasons from the AMO to some other long time scale pattern or it could be Co2. Ice doesn't normally melt that much as seen on the charts of 1978-1990 compared to today.








A climate shift has happened no matter what you believe.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2012)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?
> ...



Yeah, I know


----------



## mamooth (Aug 22, 2012)

Frank's retarded logic here is "Well, there were natural climate cycles in the past, so it must be natural now!". If we apply CrusaderFrank's retardo-logic in a similar fashion elsewhere, we can say:

Species went extinct naturally in the past, therefore all extinctions must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause extinctions! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Forest fires occurred naturally in the past, therefor all forest fires must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause forest fires! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Conclusion: Frank's retarded logic is, indeed, totally retarded.

Natural cycles have causes. We know what the causes were in the past that initiated climate shifts. None of them are at play now. That's why the non-retarded people know it's not a natural cycle now. It's solely the brainwashed political cultists who try to deflect from the issue with this frantic handwaving about "natural cycles."


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 23, 2012)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 24, 2012)

A slaughter!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 24, 2012)

This is a interesting site, showing the maps of both extent and thickness for each day.

https://sites.google.com/site/apoca...ea-ice-concentration-and-thickness-comparison

The ice thickness map is the shocker. The thick ice is just gone. Everywhere. Even on the Greenland coast, the 6m+ ice is gone. An icebreaker could bust up to the north pole right now, something that's never happened before.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 25, 2012)

Before 2007 the 2005 sea ice sea held the record!

This is August 23rd 2005






Heres the same day in 2007






Heres 8-23-2012


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 25, 2012)

2012	8	10	5.24234	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120810_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	11	5.09222	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120811_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	12	5.00511	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120812_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	13	4.89798	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120813_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	14	4.81884	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120814_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	15	4.80838	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120815_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	16	4.67673	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120816_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	17	4.63991	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120817_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	18	4.55608	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120818_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	19	4.44738	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120819_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	20	4.33489	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120820_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	21	4.33137	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120821_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	22	4.29062	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120822_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012	8	23	4.19043	0	 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120823_f17_nrt_n.bin


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 25, 2012)

*2012 holds the OFFICAL RECORD!!! WAHOOO!!!*


But we have the numbers this time, because NSIDC decided - kudos to them - to release their daily numbers (hat-tip to Larry Hamilton):


 2005 | 5.31832
 2006 | 5.74877
 2007 | 4.1607
 2008 | 4.55469
 2009 | 5.05488
 2010 | 4.59918
 2011 | 4.30207
 2012 | 4.0892 (and running)


WAHOOO, 2012 HOLDS THE RECORD!!!

Record dominoes 8: NSIDC daily sea ice extent - Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2012)

And the shape of the curve indicates it has a ways to go yet.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And the shape of the curve indicates it has a ways to go yet.



This year is likely going to go down to 3.8 million km.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2012)

Now to see what the Arctic Ocean Clathrates do.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 26, 2012)

All the colorful images are cool. And some on here seem a bit giddy about the changes they see from 2005 on. Like they've won some inconic debate.


So........lets assume for a moment they have!!!!


It means the world is warming..........


I have a question then.


*So what?*



Now who's giddy??





I gotta say.................every time I see these threads, it makes me think of the Twilight Zone episode "Time Enough at Last" starring Burgess Meredeth. If you havent seen it, the ending is a perfect illustration of the reality for the environmental crusaders in the global warming debate.


No glasses s0ns!!!!   ( and the agnostics aint coming with a pair either!!!)


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 26, 2012)

Top 10 Must-See Episodes of the Twilight Zone


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Frank's retarded logic here is "Well, there were natural climate cycles in the past, so it must be natural now!". If we apply CrusaderFrank's retardo-logic in a similar fashion elsewhere, we can say:
> 
> Species went extinct naturally in the past, therefore all extinctions must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause extinctions! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!
> 
> ...



I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any, much less all of the things you claim it does, and there's a good reason why you can't. It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.

Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire.  Can you show us how that works?

Of course you can't.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any,



Arrhenius did that back in 1896. By the way, why do you have that strange arbitrary fixation on 20ppm? CO2 levels are up 120ppm, about 40% of the pre-industrial level. 40% is a very significant change, would you not agree?



> much less all of the things you claim it does,



You mean the things you claim we claim it does. That is, the bizarre things you make up, like your hysterical alarmism of people living in caves and the great UN socialist conspiracy and the coming economic DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.



> and there's a good reason why you can't.



But we can. We directly measure the the outgoing IR radiation closing down over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies. Smoking gun.



> It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.



In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to be smart. I can do it, but you look ridiculous when you try.



> Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire.  Can you show us how that works?



Why do you think 2 ppm of CO2 causes forest fires? That's just whack.

Instead of going off into a jealous rage because AGW science has been successful at making predictions for decades, perhaps you could try some science yourself. That is, propose a theory, and make predictions based on that theory. What denialist theory explains the current warming? What predictions does that theory make?

Remember that any cowardly evasive handwaving about "natural cycles" is a pathetic admission of surrender, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes, so you need to name the specific cause of the magical natural cycle currently in play. Otherwise, you may as well attribute it to fairies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2012)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any,
> ...



Arrhenius did no such thing no matter how many times you repeat the same lie.

I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM, it's on YOU to show us a repeatable experiment to demonstrate how it works. Arrihenius didn't and NONE of the labs doing this fake "Science" ever did either. 40% of a rounding error is still a rounding error and don't forget that water vapor supposedly does 90% of the heat trapping.

Where are your stats on H2O?  Hmmmm?

You claim AGW causes: Droughts, floods, ice storms, heat, cold and can start forest fires.

I think the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 26, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM,


Well of course you don't, CrazyFruitcake, 'cause you're an anti-science retard.






CrusaderFrank said:


> it's on YOU to show us a repeatable experiment to demonstrate how it works.


But CrazyFruitcake, you're very obviously far too retarded to understand the science since it has been explained to you and your braindead denier cult butt-buddies many times on this forum.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Arrihenius didn't and NONE of the labs doing this fake "Science" ever did either. 40% of a rounding error is still a rounding error and don't forget that water vapor supposedly does 90% of the heat trapping. Where are your stats on H2O?  Hmmmm?


And more clueless retarded drivel from the CrazyFruitcake. 







CrusaderFrank said:


> You claim AGW causes: Droughts, floods, ice storms, heat, cold and can start forest fires.


AGW does cause droughts and floods. AGW has raised the water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% since 1970 and that has increased the amount of snowfall and rainfall. Anthropogenic Global *Warming* is indeed causing "heat", nitwit. Climate changes produced by AGW have caused unusual movements of Arctic air masses and that has produced colder than normal temperatures in some places in the winter. AGW has increased temperatures and caused lingering droughts that have dried out the vegetation to the point where fires are more likely to start and tend to be larger and more intense when they do get going. All of that is scientifically verified but of course, CrazyFruitcake, you're far too retarded to comprehend the science.






CrusaderFrank said:


> I think...


ROTFLMAO.......lolololololololololololol.......................another one of your many delusions.....







CrusaderFrank said:


> the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.


And there's that old CrazyFruitcake wacko conspiracy theory insanity again.

It's really too bad that you're so brain damaged, CrazyFruitcake. Nasty people are taking advantage of your mental incompetence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 26, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM,
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 26, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The ice is melting, so how isn't the earth warming?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 26, 2012)

How the fuck can anyone say that the earth isn't going through a climate change? Just look at this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

AGW Observer

Strong mass loss at low elevations has had dynamic impact on the entire Greenland ice sheet

Dynamic inland propagation of thinning due to ice loss at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet &#8211; Wang et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: &#8220;Mass-balance analysis of the Greenland ice sheet based on surface elevation changes observed by the European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) (1992-2002) and Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) (2003-07) indicates that the strongly increased mass loss at lower elevations (<2000 m) of the ice sheet, as observed during 2003-07, appears to induce interior ice thinning at higher elevations. In this paper, we perform a perturbation experiment with a three-dimensional anisotropic ice-flow model (AIF model) to investigate this upstream propagation. Observed thinning rates in the regions below 2000 m elevation are used as perturbation inputs. The model runs with perturbation for 10 years show that the extensive mass loss at the ice-sheet margins does in fact cause interior thinning on short timescales (i.e. decadal). The modeled pattern of thinning over the ice sheet agrees with the observations, which implies that the strong mass loss since the early 2000s at low elevations has had a dynamic impact on the entire ice sheet. The modeling results also suggest that even if the large mass loss at the margins stopped, the interior ice sheet would continue thinning for 300 years and would take thousands of years for full dynamic recovery.&#8221;

Citation: Wang, Weili; Li, Jun; Zwally, H. Jay, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 58, Number 210, August 2012 , pp. 734-740(7), DOI: International Glaciological Society (IGS) » Journal of Glaciology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

AGW Observer

Glaciers are shrinking in Big Naryn basin in Central Asia

Glacier changes in the Big Naryn basin, Central Tian Shan &#8211; Hagg et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;A glacier inventory referring to the year 2007 was created for the Big Naryn basin based on satellite imagery. The 507 glaciers had a total area of 471 km². Compared to the Soviet glacier inventory based on data from the mid 20th century, the total glacier area decreased by 23.4%. The shrinkage varies from 14% to 42% between individual mountain ranges. We discuss the possible causes for this considerable variation by analyzing and interpreting topographic parameters and differences between seven sub-regions. On three glaciers, ice thickness was derived by ground penetrating radar (GPR) measurements on the glacier tongues and by surface slope using a simplified ice mechanical approach on the upper parts. We estimate the total ice volume of the basin for both inventories using volume-area scaling. Our results show a current glacier volume of 26.0-33.3 km³. A total of 6.6-8.4 km³ (20%) have been lost since the mid 20th century. The water equivalent of 5.9-7.6 km³ was transformed into excess discharge and contributed to at least 7.3-9.2% of total runoff in the considered period.&#8221;

Citation: W. Hagg, C. Mayer, A. Lambrecht, D. Kriegel, E. Azizov, Global and Planetary Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.07.010.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

AGW Observer

Record low temperature minimums decreasing and record high maximums increasing in United States

Trends in record-breaking temperatures for the conterminous United States &#8211; Rowe & Derry (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;In an unchanging climate, record-breaking temperatures are expected to decrease in frequency over time, as established records become increasingly more difficult to surpass. This inherent trend in the number of record-breaking events confounds the interpretation of actual trends in the presence of any underlying climate change. Here, a simple technique to remove the inherent trend is introduced so that any remaining trend can be examined separately for evidence of a climate change. As this technique does not use the standard definition of a broken record, our records* are differentiated by an asterisk. Results for the period 1961&#8211;2010 indicate that the number of record* low daily minimum temperatures has been significantly and steadily decreasing nearly everywhere across the United States while the number of record* high daily minimum temperatures has been predominantly increasing. Trends in record* low and record* high daily maximum temperatures are generally weaker and more spatially mixed in sign. These results are consistent with other studies examining changes expected in a warming climate.&#8221;

Citation: Rowe, C. M. and L. E. Derry (2012), Trends in record-breaking temperatures for the conterminous United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16703, doi:10.1029/2012GL052775.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

*So much for all the bullshit about the good that increased CO2 was supposed to do.*

AGW Observer

Elevated carbon dioxide may affect hydrological cycle by decreasing plant respiration

Deep-time evidence of a link between elevated CO2 concentrations and perturbations in the hydrological cycle via drop in plant transpiration &#8211; Steinthorsdottir et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;The physiological effects of high CO2 concentrations, i.e., [CO2], on plant stomatal responses may be of major importance in understanding the consequences of climate change, by causing increases in runoff through suppression of plant transpiration. Radiative forcing by high [CO2] has been the main consideration in models of global change to the exclusion of plant physiological forcing, but this potentially underestimates the effects on the hydrological cycle, and the consequences for ecosystems. We tested the physiological responses of fossil plants from the Triassic&#8211;Jurassic boundary transition (Tr&#8211;J) succession of East Greenland. This interval marks a major high CO2-driven environmental upheaval, with faunal mass extinctions and significant floral turnover. Our results show that both stomatal size (expressed in fossil material as SL, the length of the stomatal complex opening) and stomatal density (SD, the number of stomata per mm2) decreased significantly during the Tr&#8211;J. We estimate, using a leaf gas-exchange model, that the decreases in SD and SL resulted in a 50%&#8211;60% drop in stomatal and canopy transpiration at the Tr&#8211;J. We also present new field evidence indicating simultaneous increases in runoff and erosion rates. We propose that the consequences of stomatal responses to elevated [CO2] may lead to locally increased runoff and erosion, and may link terrestrial and marine biodiversity loss via the hydrological cycle.&#8221;

Citation: Margret Steinthorsdottir, F. Ian Woodward, Finn Surlyk and Jennifer C. McElwain, Geology, v. 40 no. 9 p. 815-818, doi: 10.1130/G33334.1.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2012)

*More evidence, as if any more is needed, of rapid ice loss due to the recent warming.*

AGW Observer

Early 20th century abruptly ended a 1500-year period favoring Castle Creek Glacier expansion

Late Holocene glacier expansion in the Cariboo and northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, Canada &#8211; Maurer et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Castle Creek Glacier in the Cariboo Mountains of British Columbia remained close to its Little Ice Age limit for most of the past 1500 years, without significant recession until the 20th century. This conclusion is based on radiocarbon-dated detrital and in-situ plant material overrun by the glacier, and the sedimentary record from informally named On&#8211;off Lake, which received clastic sediments only when Castle Creek Glacier crossed a hydrologic divide 330 m upvalley of the Little Ice Age limit. Plant macrofossils recovered from the transition between basal inorganic silt and overlying organic silty clay in a sediment core from the lake indicate that the glacier first retreated behind the divide ca. 10.92&#8211;9.70 ka. Ages of 8.97&#8211;8.61 and 5.58&#8211;5.53 ka on detrital wood from the glacier&#8217;s forefield may record earlier advances, but the first unequivocal evidence of glacier expansion is from an overridden stump with an age of 4.96&#8211;4.45 ka. Continuous accumulation of gyttja within On&#8211;off Lake, however, indicates that Castle Creek Glacier did not cross the hydrologic divide at any time during the first half of the Holocene. Glacigenic sediments began to accumulate in the lake between 2.73 and 2.49 ka, indicating that Castle Creek Glacier expanded beyond the hydrologic divide at that time. A coincident advance is also recorded in the northern Rocky Mountains of British Columbia at Kwadacha Glacier, which overran a vegetated surface at 2.69&#8211;2.36 ka. Clastic sedimentation in On&#8211;off Lake ceased soon after the Bridge River volcanic eruption (2.70&#8211;2.35 ka), indicating that Castle Creek glacier retreat to a position upvalley of the divide at that time. Sedimentation resumed before 1.87&#8211;1.72 ka when the glacier advanced again past the hydrologic divide. Following a second retreat, Castle Creek Glacier advanced across the divide a final time at ca. 1.54&#8211;1.42 ka. The snout of the glacier remained less than 330 m upvalley of the Little Ice Age moraine until the early twentieth century when annual moraines indicate rapid frontal recession to a position upvalley of the hydrologic divide. These data collectively indicate that glaciers in the Cariboo Mountains of British Columbia nearly achieved their all-time Holocene limits as early as 2.73&#8211;2.49 ka and climatic conditions in the early 20th century abruptly ended a 1500-year period favoring glacier expansion.&#8221;

Citation: Malyssa K. Maurer, Brian Menounos, Brian H. Luckman, Gerald Osborn, John J. Clague, Matthew J. Beedle, Rod Smith, Nigel Atkinson, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 51, 19 September 2012, Pages 71&#8211;80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.07.023.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 27, 2012)

Arctic sea ice extent breaks 2007 record low

August 27, 2012


Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents.

Please note that this is not an announcement of the sea ice minimum extent for 2012. NSIDC will release numbers for the 2012 daily minimum extent when it occurs. A full analysis of the melt season will be published in early October, once monthly data are available for September. 



*Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).*

Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).

Conditions in context


Figure 2. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of August 26, 2012, along with daily ice extent data for 2007, the previous record low year, and 1980, the record high year. 2012 is shown in blue, 2007 in green, and 1980 in orange. The 1979 to 2000 average is in dark gray. The gray area around this average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. The 1981 to 2010 average is in sky blue. Sea Ice Index data. 

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 
High-resolution image  












After tracking near 2007 levels through July, the extent declined rapidly in early August. Since then, the loss rate has slowed some, averaging about 75,000 square kilometers (29,000 square miles) per day&#8212;equivalent to the size of the state of South Carolina. However, this is still much faster than the normal rate at this time of year of about 40,000 square 
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 27, 2012)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

When you don't have any real science, hurl insults, make up charts and tree rings and keep repeating "AGW is for real"

You're sure it's not particulates from Asia that are causing this? You've eliminated all variables except for CO2 from the USA? Is that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky not a factor a factor?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you don't have any real science....


And that's you in a nutshell, CrazyFruitcake, you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > When you don't have any real science....
> ...



Remember when Einstein, Newton and Maxwell all said their theories didn't need experimental evidence because they were "peer reviewed" and they had "Consensus"?

Michio Kaku said that had Relativity failed even one experiment they would have had to throw it out and start all over, but since it's passed every single experiment (well maybe), it's probably a good theory. All you fuckers have is Mann's tree rings backed by faked and altered data

That ain't science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

"Moral: this is how science is done. There are no sacred cows in physics. Every theory has to work every time, in any place. Physics is constantly self-correcting.* Even one data point can overthrow the more established theory. *But, as Carl Sagan pointed out -- "Remarkable Claims Require Remarkable Proof.""

The Noose Around Relativity is Tightening | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

But AGW carries on even with faked and destroyed data and a specious premise.  It's just not science


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, because it didn't happen. Just more of your confused insanity, CrazyFruitcake.






CrusaderFrank said:


> Michio Kaku said that had Relativity failed even one experiment they would have had to throw it out and start all over, but since it's passed every single experiment, it's probably a good theory. All you fuckers have is Mann's tree rings backed by faked and altered data
> 
> That ain't science


You're so retarded and ignorant, you wouldn't know "science" if it bit you. All you've got is your deranged denier cult myths about climate science. You have no idea what evidence the climate scientists actually have because you've got your head jammed way too far up your own asshole to be able to see the evidence.






CrusaderFrank said:


> "Moral: this is how science is done. There are no sacred cows in physics. Every theory has to work every time, in any place. Physics is constantly self-correcting.* Even one data point can overthrow the more established theory. *But, as Carl Sagan pointed out -- "Remarkable Claims Require Remarkable Proof.""
> 
> The Noose Around Relativity is Tightening | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think
> 
> But AGW carries on even with faked and destroyed data and a specious premise.  It's just not science



As I just said, CrazyFruitcake, "you don't have any real science, just denier cult myths and lies". Like your idiotic myths about "_faked and destroyed data_" - didn't happen, all the data is there and available to the public. 

You poor deluded and bamboozled retard, you just have no idea what is going on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2012)

Rolling Thunder, clearly you're hysterical. Put a paper bag over your head, then rest your head between your knees, I'll come back in a few weeks to see if you've calmed down.

I know it feels like I'm attacking your God, but really, your AGW is a cult, a sick death worshiping cult, but still a cult.

You post a lot like Bobgnote. Was he an alternate account of yours to make you look sane?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 28, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rolling Thunder, clearly you're hysterical.


CrazyFruitcake, clearly you're a retard.







CrusaderFrank said:


> Put a paper bag over your head, then rest your head between your knees,


Pull your head out of your ass, then clean that old denier cult shit out of your eyes and ears and try to bring your brain back to life.






CrusaderFrank said:


> I'll come back in a few weeks to see if you've calmed down.


Translation: "_oooooh, I have to run away now 'cause all my cherished myths are getting debunked with hard facts_".







CrusaderFrank said:


> I know it feels like I'm attacking your God


Wrong again, CrazyFruitcake, as usual. Actually it feels like you're once again demonstrating just how incredibly retarded you are.






CrusaderFrank said:


> but really, your AGW is a cult, a sick death worshiping cult, but still a cult.


I'm sure that to a cultist like you, everything seems like another cult but your opinions on this are just more of your general insanity. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence gathered over many decades by tens of thousands of scientists and accepted as a valid scientific theory that explains the evidence by virtually the entire world scientific community. You deniers on the other hand are a cult, a sick, money worshiping, planetary death cult peopled with ignorant and gullible morons like you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 28, 2012)

2012, 08, 25, 3.97332
 2012, 08, 26, 3.94326
 2012, 08, 27, 3.85419

In case you doubt this


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 29, 2012)

This is August 1938










Danske Meteorologiske Institut published a series of annual reports on arctic sea ice covering most years from 1893 to 1956. The link has one folder per year, with each containing individual pages (month identified by the trailing digit) and the whole annual report (about 5 meg each).

Just referring to August extent...

Its true that ice extent was lower in the 1930s than it had been in the preceding 30 years. In particular, 1938 saw a dramatic reduction from the previous years - it was probably 1.4 M km^2 below the then long term average and maybe 0.6 M km^2 below the already low years in the late 30's (carefully measured using Eyeball, Mk I).

So, it is fair to say there were some big melts in the 30's. But Christy's false equivalence is an epic fail - "similar melts" is pretty nice weasel-wording for mine. 1.4 M km^2 below recent climatology? Considered like that, 1938 was like 2010, I guess.

But in absolute terms, August 1938 extent was much greater (4 M km^2?) than today. So any attempt to conflate the two is...well...I can['t think of an adjective suitable for polite company.

Taking the Kinnard graphic - the 1930's "similar melt" is the second last dip on the graph, the first decline with modern observational data. This saw a return to "normal" after a peak that had seen the greatest extents in 500 years.

Compared to the current decline on Kinnard (even without "enhancement")? Well, even on Sesame Street they could tell you when one of these things was not like the other...

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/similar-melts-from-1938-43.html

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/

August 1925
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1925/1925_08.pdf

August 1934
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1934/1934_08.pdf

August 1956
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1956/1956_08.pdf

There is no question that todays sea ice is outside of the norm.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2012)

The deniers are going off the rails, because it's all falling apart for them. This record low arctic sea ice was the tipping point of their sanity, because it's so impossible to deny, and because the average person can connect so strongly with it. This isn't some abstract global average temperature, this is Santa's workshop melting.

I keep asking the deniers for their theory to explain the observed warming, and to make some predictions based on that theory. None of them will do so. That's how we know they're doing pseudoscience on the orders of their political cult.

I'll predict that 2013 shows a new record high average global temperature. With an El Nino starting up now and the solar cycle hitting maximum, only a massive volcanic eruption could prevent a new record high. 2012, probably not, due to the La Nina dominating the first half.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 29, 2012)

Nobody is denying the ice is melting. What we're denying is that you've proved that CO2 is the proximate cause of the melt.

See the difference?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 29, 2012)

a short while ago, it looked like this


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2012)

Frank, we're well aware of your "It has to be a natural cycle, because I feel it must be so!" idiocy. No need to repeat it.

What I keep asking for is your theory that explains the current warming. And you won't give one. None of  the denialists will. That's because you're all pseudoscience-babbling political cultists.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 30, 2012)




----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2012)

So, they are predicting a minimum of three for this year. I have to wonder about the upswing part of it. At some point, the heat absorbed by the open water is going to push the freezeup curve to the right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Frank, we're well aware of your "It has to be a natural cycle, because I feel it must be so!" idiocy. No need to repeat it.
> 
> What I keep asking for is your theory that explains the current warming. And you won't give one. None of  the denialists will. That's because you're all pseudoscience-babbling political cultists.



I thought you had a theory? The ice is melting because of soot from Asia.  There, done.

I've never seen a single experiment that shows how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does much of anything


----------



## westwall (Aug 30, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Frank, we're well aware of your "It has to be a natural cycle, because I feel it must be so!" idiocy. No need to repeat it.
> 
> What I keep asking for is your theory that explains the current warming. And you won't give one. None of  the denialists will. That's because you're all pseudoscience-babbling political cultists.







How about you mamooy.  We can show categorically that nothing occuring now is out of the ordinary.  We can show "weather events" that occured in the past that were more severe, and more damaging.  All without the benefit of CO2.  

So, referencing Occam, how do you explain that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Aug 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, we're well aware of your "It has to be a natural cycle, because I feel it must be so!" idiocy. No need to repeat it.
> ...


Easy to explain. You're a deluded retard. You have some deranged fantasies about what you can "_categorically show_" when in fact, you are unable to provide any sound scientific evidence whatsoever that supports your idiotic delusions. Whenever you try to "_show_" everyone your evidence, it is so lame and unscientific that it gets debunked immediately.

*Climate change: How do we know?
NASA*
(government publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
(excerpts)

*The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. (5) Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. (6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. (7)

Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. (8)

Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. (9)

Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world  including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. (10)

Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. (11)

Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. (12,13) This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. (14,15)*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2012)

Northwest passage opens!

2007


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

Had we not had that storm and moved more ice into the western end of the Northwest Passage, the Passage would have been open for nearly a month now. Of course the Northeast Passage has been open for quite a while now.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2012)

All that green, yellow and some of the "red" could melt within the next 2-3 weeks. On the russian side there appears to be another huge piece breaking off.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

Going to be interesting to see where and when the melt bottoms out this year. And how much freezeup we have by March next year.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2012)

It's the soot coming over from Asia


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 31, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's the soot coming over from Asia



It's .4c of warming since 1979. For whatever reason.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 31, 2012)

Never convince Frankie Boy of that. He is absolutely sure that science has politics.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's the soot coming over from Asia


Oh.....is that what ate your brain, CrazyFruitcake? Soot from Asia?


----------



## tjvh (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Never convince Frankie Boy of that. He is absolutely sure that *science has politics*.



The fact that you don't believe that speaks volumes... Do you really believe that politics has *nothing* to do with it when *Federal Grant time arrives?* If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Never convince Frankie Boy of that. He is absolutely sure that *science has politics*.
> ...



OK, dumb fuck. Are we funding all the scientists in Europe, Asia, Russia, and every other country that has scientists? Because they are all reporting the same thing, that the ice in the glaciers and polar caps is melting. That the tempature of the Earths surface and atmosphere is rising. And that the pattern of the rise is that one would expect from GHGs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

2.488

How much lower will it go?

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2012)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's the soot coming over from Asia
> ...



That's not enough to melt the ice, its soot and the aldebo, it fits the facts


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Says who?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2012)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2012)

*Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers*

September 5, 2012


Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 10.2% per decade.





Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

The monthly averaged ice extent for August was 4.72 million square kilometers (1.82 square miles). This is 2.94 million square kilometers (1.14 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent, and 640,000 square kilometers (247,000 square miles) below the previous record low for August set in 2007. Including 2012, the August trend is -78,100 square kilometers (-30,200 square miles) per year, or -10.2 % per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Dumb fuck?  Not all of the Scientists... But enough of them receive funding from the American Taxpayer. They are not all reporting the same thing... How about a link to that craziness? I recall you were the dumb fuck who said forest fires were the result of man made Global Warming... Man made forestry policies maybe, but that is the extent of it. I don't profess that our planet does *not* go through temperature changes, but I find it insulting that idiots like you would have us believe that humans are at fault... *Ridiculous.* I don't recall Oil refineries, SUV's , and Coal powered electricity generating plants as being the root cause for Earth's *Ice Age*... You better adjust that tin foil hat of yours, this winter is going to be a cold one.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2012)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's the soot coming over from Asia
> ...







According to Hansen.  Thus, it is not believable.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2012)

Who Knew? 

Ice melts above 0degC.. WTHell?

You guys do realize that you are watching ICEBERGS melt, not solid ice. As SIE is usually defined as any cell having 20% or more ice coverage. So on your map projections -- an area that was initially only covered in a small part by ice is now clear... Which is MOST of the extreme Southern extent of the ice cover anyway..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



AGW Observer

A link to numerous papers published in peer reviewed journals.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

A link to the largest scientific organization in the world and their history of the investigation of GHGs and global warming. Many links within the site.

Global Warming and Wildfires | Union of Concerned Scientists

Wildfires and global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's the soot coming over from Asia
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

2.36 square kilometers by Crysphere.

Global Warming and Wildfires | Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Since 1979 the TSI has decreased, but the amount of CO2 and other GHGs has significantly increased.

So, because of the increase in GHGs what should have been a decrease in temperature is now an increase.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



The TSI chart says you're lying.  When the line move up, that means it's increasing. Increasing.

See the difference?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> 2.36 square kilometers by Crysphere.
> 
> Global Warming and Wildfires | Union of Concerned Scientists



"Is Global Warming Fueling Increased Wildfire Risks?

The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season."

In any Cult, the members believe that their God is all-powerful.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Who Knew?
> 
> Ice melts above 0degC.. WTHell?
> 
> You guys do realize that you are watching ICEBERGS melt, not solid ice. As SIE is usually defined as any cell having 20% or more ice coverage. So on your map projections -- an area that was initially only covered in a small part by ice is now clear... Which is MOST of the extreme Southern extent of the ice cover anyway..



Flatulance, you are one dumb fuck to make a claim like that that can be so easily proven false.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

That is 2012.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19790907.png

That is 1979. Note that the pink and dark pink areas are thick ice.

Far from being a bunch of floating icebergs, the arctic sea ice was solid enough then for dog sled trips to the north pole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



For the last decade, the TSI has been down, and is only now coming up. Yet, the last decade is the warmest on record.

TSI Data


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Who Knew?
> ...



Gosh OldieRocks -- I'd usually neg for something like that.. But I've kinda taken a protective role for the hopelessly bewildered..... 

There's a little charty thingy to the left of those images... Notice it says SEA ICE CONCENTRATION.. Go look up the definition and re-read what I wrote above. Annnnnd stop calling me a dumb fuck unless you have a point...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

In 1979, the only ships in the Arctic were icebreakers and the special ships built for that environment. Since 2005, they have been taking standard recreational sailboats through the Northwest and Northeast Passages, sometimes even circumnavigating the whole ice pack.

The average icepack volume from 1979 to 2001 was just under 14 million cubic kilometers. It is projected to bottom out at 3 million cubic kilometers this year. That is a reduction by a factor of five, almost the whole of the reduction in the last 11 years.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL......oh fecalhead, your brand of insanity just keeps on getting funnier and funnier as your sorry excuse for a mind disintegrates due to your cultic myths getting blown away by reality. 

Nice little bit of 'projection' there too, considering that it is actually you that is "_hopelessly bewildered_" at this point.

BTW, everybody who knows you calls you a 'dumb fuck' because you are a dumb fuck; we don't need a specific "_point_". Every post you makes just demonstrates and  reinforces the fact that you're a dumb fuck.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



Did you not look at the chart you linked to? There is a RISING red line at the end.

Try reading and understanding what you link to, at least once in a while


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> In 1979, the only ships in the Arctic were icebreakers and the special ships built for that environment. Since 2005, they have been taking standard recreational sailboats through the Northwest and Northeast Passages, sometimes even circumnavigating the whole ice pack.
> 
> The average icepack volume from 1979 to 2001 was just under 14 million cubic kilometers. It is projected to bottom out at 3 million cubic kilometers this year. That is a reduction by a factor of five, almost the whole of the reduction in the last 11 years.



Look -- I'm impressed at the ice melt.. I just want to understand EXACTLY what we're watching.. It's NOT an image of polar ice. It's not even a measurement of the volume.. Although I'm certain volume is decreasing as well... I spent 3 yrs in Earth Resource Satellite image processing -- so I'm sensitive to looking at pseudocolored stuff.. 
That's all... 

Did someone fart in here?  I thought I saw another DundrHead post -- but it was completely empty and pointless.. We really have to have better security..


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 6, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I spent 3 yrs in Earth Resource Satellite image processing....


....as a janitor?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2012)

What we are watching is a very large change in the albedo of the earth in four months of the summer. The ice reflects 90% of the sunlight, the water absorbs 90% of the sunlight. And then, as the water warms, it melts more ice. 

It looks like we will have an essentially ice free Arctic Ocean around 2015, almost certainly by 2020. This was not supposed to happen before 2100. While the temperatures are not quite as high as the models have predicted, the effects are far greater than what has been predicted. From the cryosphere to the weather patterns, the sensitivity of systems of this planet seem to be far greater than most thought. 

Now we are still waiting to find out what the amount of outgassing of the CH4 clathrates will be this summer.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 9, 2012)




----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 9, 2012)

Arctic News: High September 2012 methane levels


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 9, 2012)

*Much information and links here.*

Arctic News: Arctic Methane Alarm

The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane&#8217;s lifetime extends as more methane is released. 

The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane (image below, medium light colors) over 50 years would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m-2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> What we are watching is a very large change in the albedo of the earth in four months of the summer. The ice reflects 90% of the sunlight, the water absorbs 90% of the sunlight. And then, as the water warms, it melts more ice.
> 
> It looks like we will have an essentially ice free Arctic Ocean around 2015, almost certainly by 2020. This was not supposed to happen before 2100. While the temperatures are not quite as high as the models have predicted, the effects are far greater than what has been predicted. From the cryosphere to the weather patterns, the sensitivity of systems of this planet seem to be far greater than most thought.
> 
> Now we are still waiting to find out what the amount of outgassing of the CH4 clathrates will be this summer.



Right.

It's soot from Asia to blame


----------

