2013 sea ice thread!!!

[Abraham3]

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

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[itfitzme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.

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

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice

Antarctic ice shelves 'tearing apart', says study

Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below


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

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

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

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

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

 

[itfitzme]

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

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice

Antarctic ice shelves 'tearing apart', says study

Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below


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

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

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

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

That's the IPCC report. The rest of your cult was screaming "the sky is falling" as I demponstrated above.

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

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

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

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

However you slice it, your full of crap.

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[itfitzme]

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

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

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



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

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Abraham3]

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

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

My dog could lecture you WeeBall.

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

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

He is correct.

You are wrong.

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

 

[Abraham3]

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

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

 

[Abraham3]

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

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

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

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

My plot: "NSIDC"

Your plot: "NSIDC"

Ooooo, that IS a tough one!

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

Hey Westy, any comment on the AGW Null Hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

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

My plot: "NSIDC"

Your plot: "NSIDC"

Ooooo, that IS a tough one!

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

Hey Westy, any comment on the AGW Null Hypothesis?

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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