Arctic Ice Melting Slows

[Liability]

yeah i forgot the kermit angle, sorry, we could have found common ground.

i used the word alinksy, you bit and were talking about obama, this is the pavlovian reflex.

like teleprompter=obama.

rules for radicals is from the 70's. those rules are as valid when criticizing obama's critics as when criticizing al gore.

don't get distracted by the shiny object.

Bullcrap. No matter WHEN the Alinsky days and his idiot Rules were most in vogue, this President was a devotee of the man and his "Rules."

President Obama is, in effect, the "man," now. But he is a community organizer in his stinking heart of hearts and is still fighting "the man." To his advantage, now he gets to do it from the inside.

And that has a TON of explanatory power for the mutant imbecility he foists off as "policy" in this God-foresaken Administration with an idiot liberal Congress marching largely in lock-step.

SO, congratulate yourself on your own time. The facts are still the facts and you cannot reasonably take credit for those facts. This is President Community Organizer trained and steeped in the Alinsky school.

What did Alinsky teach his student over and above ANYYTHING else, LK?

Answer that one correctly and you don't have any obligation to make any further references to Kermit or any other frogs.

aye master. the shiny object called alinsky, i cannot control it anymore. i feel like the zauberlehrling must have felt. luckily:

„In die Ecke Besen, Besen!
Seids gewesen, denn als Geister
ruft euch nur zu seinem Zwecke
erst hervor der alte Meister!"

no obama, no alinsky. ridicule is the name of the game.

Sure. I will accept that as your concession that you do not know what Alinsky valued -- and preached -- over and above anything and everything else.

You can ridicule whatever shiny object strikes your fancy. I'm sorry that I am not obliged to care. And I don't. But your lofty attempt at derision changes exactly and precisely nothing.

Alinsky is the role model of what President Obama is all about.

If you knew more about Saul Alinsky and his true political beliefs, you would gain much greater insight into the motivations of our current President. That happens to be a very tragic fact.

Maybe I should care that you find something mock-worthy in that. But, I don't.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Bullcrap. No matter WHEN the Alinsky days and his idiot Rules were most in vogue, this President was a devotee of the man and his "Rules."

President Obama is, in effect, the "man," now. But he is a community organizer in his stinking heart of hearts and is still fighting "the man." To his advantage, now he gets to do it from the inside.

And that has a TON of explanatory power for the mutant imbecility he foists off as "policy" in this God-foresaken Administration with an idiot liberal Congress marching largely in lock-step.

SO, congratulate yourself on your own time. The facts are still the facts and you cannot reasonably take credit for those facts. This is President Community Organizer trained and steeped in the Alinsky school.

What did Alinsky teach his student over and above ANYYTHING else, LK?

Answer that one correctly and you don't have any obligation to make any further references to Kermit or any other frogs.

aye master. the shiny object called alinsky, i cannot control it anymore. i feel like the zauberlehrling must have felt. luckily:

„In die Ecke Besen, Besen!
Seids gewesen, denn als Geister
ruft euch nur zu seinem Zwecke
erst hervor der alte Meister!"

no obama, no alinsky. ridicule is the name of the game.

Sure. I will accept that as your concession that you do not know what Alinsky valued -- and preached -- over and above anything and everything else.

You can ridicule whatever shiny object strikes your fancy. I'm sorry that I am not obliged to care. And I don't. But your lofty attempt at derision changes exactly and precisely nothing.

Alinsky is the role model of what President Obama is all about.

If you knew more about Saul Alinsky and his true political beliefs, you would gain much greater insight into the motivations of our current President. That happens to be a very tragic fact.

Maybe I should care that you find something mock-worthy in that. But, I don't.

you don't get it. read any thread about climate change and you will find the mocking and the ridicule. then come back to me. the mocking in this thread started with the OP.

 

[code1211]

I know there were many who were concerned that the Arctic Ice Caps would melt and with it any hope that mankind could survive.

Thankfully, while below the ice Extent numbers for the average year 1979 through 2000, there was more Arctic Ice near the end of August this year than at the same time in 2007 or 2008.

I couldn't really tell if the Northwest Passage was open or not from the satelite photo. It didn't look to be so yet. I think that an open northwest Passage was one of the predictions from a poster here earlier this year.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure1.png

complete bullshit, see my NSIDC post on the actual data[/QUOTE


Both of the links I put up were from the NSIDC. Your link didn't apprear in my copy. Could you please repost it?

 

[k2skier]

I know there were many who were concerned that the Arctic Ice Caps would melt and with it any hope that mankind could survive.

Thankfully, while below the ice Extent numbers for the average year 1979 through 2000, there was more Arctic Ice near the end of August this year than at the same time in 2007 or 2008.

I couldn't really tell if the Northwest Passage was open or not from the satelite photo. It didn't look to be so yet. I think that an open northwest Passage was one of the predictions from a poster here earlier this year.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure1.png

Here ya go, I don't know how you could spin this that way, read what NSIDC has to say, it contradicts the OP.

Arctic Amplification | August 2009 | NSIDC Monthly Highlights

Arctic Amplification
August 2009
Recent Septembers have seen the extent of Arctic sea ice cover fall to about 60% of levels in the early 1970s. The past two years, 2007 and 2008, saw the lowest and second-lowest ice extent ever recorded. Scientists have long expected that a shrinking Arctic sea ice cover will lead to strong warming of the overlying atmosphere. This anticipated warming, known as Arctic or polar amplification because it is large in comparison to the temperature rise in lower latitudes, may further accelerate climate warming well beyond the Arctic. Mark Serreze, with NSIDC colleagues Julienne Stroeve, Andrew Barrett, David Kindig, and Andrew Slater, analyzed observations and model simulations to look for the signals of Arctic amplification. Their conclusion: it has arrived. But its effects have only just begun, raising new questions about how once-stable climate patterns will begin to alter.

 

[k2skier]

Maybe this anomaly is causing some of what your referring to...

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

August 18, 2009
A change in ice motion slows seasonal decline

but..........

Overview of conditions

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

 

[Liability]

aye master. the shiny object called alinsky, i cannot control it anymore. i feel like the zauberlehrling must have felt. luckily:

„In die Ecke Besen, Besen!
Seids gewesen, denn als Geister
ruft euch nur zu seinem Zwecke
erst hervor der alte Meister!"

no obama, no alinsky. ridicule is the name of the game.

Sure. I will accept that as your concession that you do not know what Alinsky valued -- and preached -- over and above anything and everything else.

You can ridicule whatever shiny object strikes your fancy. I'm sorry that I am not obliged to care. And I don't. But your lofty attempt at derision changes exactly and precisely nothing.

Alinsky is the role model of what President Obama is all about.

If you knew more about Saul Alinsky and his true political beliefs, you would gain much greater insight into the motivations of our current President. That happens to be a very tragic fact.

Maybe I should care that you find something mock-worthy in that. But, I don't.

you don't get it. read any thread about climate change and you will find the mocking and the ridicule. then come back to me. the mocking in this thread started with the OP.

If I don't get it, perhaps that's due to the fact that I am just a simple peasant.

Alternatively, it might be that you are just not as clear as you think you are.

In any event, there is a GREAT DEAL to mock in threads such as this.

And you did get one thing right (albeit, perhaps for the wrong reason) about me at least. When I see the name "Alinsky," I sure as hell do promptly think of President Obama. But their sordid version of politics aside, this Mankind Caused Global Climate Change crap pisses me off. The turds who promote it most tend to be cynical or just plain ignorant.

 

[code1211]

I know there were many who were concerned that the Arctic Ice Caps would melt and with it any hope that mankind could survive.

Thankfully, while below the ice Extent numbers for the average year 1979 through 2000, there was more Arctic Ice near the end of August this year than at the same time in 2007 or 2008.

I couldn't really tell if the Northwest Passage was open or not from the satelite photo. It didn't look to be so yet. I think that an open northwest Passage was one of the predictions from a poster here earlier this year.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure1.png

Here ya go, I don't know how you could spin this that way, read what NSIDC has to say, it contradicts the OP.

Arctic Amplification | August 2009 | NSIDC Monthly Highlights

Arctic Amplification
August 2009
Recent Septembers have seen the extent of Arctic sea ice cover fall to about 60% of levels in the early 1970s. The past two years, 2007 and 2008, saw the lowest and second-lowest ice extent ever recorded. Scientists have long expected that a shrinking Arctic sea ice cover will lead to strong warming of the overlying atmosphere. This anticipated warming, known as Arctic or polar amplification because it is large in comparison to the temperature rise in lower latitudes, may further accelerate climate warming well beyond the Arctic. Mark Serreze, with NSIDC colleagues Julienne Stroeve, Andrew Barrett, David Kindig, and Andrew Slater, analyzed observations and model simulations to look for the signals of Arctic amplification. Their conclusion: it has arrived. But its effects have only just begun, raising new questions about how once-stable climate patterns will begin to alter.

The link below is the latest that I can find from theNSIDC and is later than the August 8 link you use in a post later in this thread.

In 2007, the Ice melt was more extreme than the it was in 2008 and in 2009 for the same date, the ice melt is less extreme yet. To me this seems to indicate slowing since the melt amount has been less in each of three succesive years.

Does it indicate something else to you?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

 

[k2skier]

I know there were many who were concerned that the Arctic Ice Caps would melt and with it any hope that mankind could survive.

Thankfully, while below the ice Extent numbers for the average year 1979 through 2000, there was more Arctic Ice near the end of August this year than at the same time in 2007 or 2008.

I couldn't really tell if the Northwest Passage was open or not from the satelite photo. It didn't look to be so yet. I think that an open northwest Passage was one of the predictions from a poster here earlier this year.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure1.png

Here ya go, I don't know how you could spin this that way, read what NSIDC has to say, it contradicts the OP.

Arctic Amplification | August 2009 | NSIDC Monthly Highlights

Arctic Amplification
August 2009
Recent Septembers have seen the extent of Arctic sea ice cover fall to about 60% of levels in the early 1970s. The past two years, 2007 and 2008, saw the lowest and second-lowest ice extent ever recorded. Scientists have long expected that a shrinking Arctic sea ice cover will lead to strong warming of the overlying atmosphere. This anticipated warming, known as Arctic or polar amplification because it is large in comparison to the temperature rise in lower latitudes, may further accelerate climate warming well beyond the Arctic. Mark Serreze, with NSIDC colleagues Julienne Stroeve, Andrew Barrett, David Kindig, and Andrew Slater, analyzed observations and model simulations to look for the signals of Arctic amplification. Their conclusion: it has arrived. But its effects have only just begun, raising new questions about how once-stable climate patterns will begin to alter.

The link below is the latest that I can find from theNSIDC and is later than the August 8 link you use in a post later in this thread.

In 2007, the Ice melt was more extreme than the it was in 2008 and in 2009 for the same date, the ice melt is less extreme yet. To me this seems to indicate slowing since the melt amount has been less in each of three succesive years.

Does it indicate something else to you?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

Less ice melt recently? Is that what you're asking? A little, yes, but overall much less ice coverage as the graph you posted clearly indicates.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Holy cow! Who would of ever thunk it???? From all the preaching going on about the Artic Ice melting and going to be the downfall of all of mankind I started to believe this horseshit and bought the lumber to construct an ark. It's half-built already. You just can't ever count on those environmental wackos. They say one thing and then the story changes. Maybe I'll just keep the lumber and begin construction again next week when they tell me it's all crap and starting to melt again. Did anybody think to give Al Gore a call and pass this news along to him? I'm sure he really gives a shit.

 

[code1211]

Here ya go, I don't know how you could spin this that way, read what NSIDC has to say, it contradicts the OP.

Arctic Amplification | August 2009 | NSIDC Monthly Highlights

Arctic Amplification
August 2009
Recent Septembers have seen the extent of Arctic sea ice cover fall to about 60% of levels in the early 1970s. The past two years, 2007 and 2008, saw the lowest and second-lowest ice extent ever recorded. Scientists have long expected that a shrinking Arctic sea ice cover will lead to strong warming of the overlying atmosphere. This anticipated warming, known as Arctic or polar amplification because it is large in comparison to the temperature rise in lower latitudes, may further accelerate climate warming well beyond the Arctic. Mark Serreze, with NSIDC colleagues Julienne Stroeve, Andrew Barrett, David Kindig, and Andrew Slater, analyzed observations and model simulations to look for the signals of Arctic amplification. Their conclusion: it has arrived. But its effects have only just begun, raising new questions about how once-stable climate patterns will begin to alter.

The link below is the latest that I can find from theNSIDC and is later than the August 8 link you use in a post later in this thread.

In 2007, the Ice melt was more extreme than the it was in 2008 and in 2009 for the same date, the ice melt is less extreme yet. To me this seems to indicate slowing since the melt amount has been less in each of three succesive years.

Does it indicate something else to you?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

Less ice melt recently? Is that what you're asking? A little, yes, but overall much less ice coverage as the graph you posted clearly indicates.

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

 

[k2skier]

The link below is the latest that I can find from theNSIDC and is later than the August 8 link you use in a post later in this thread.

In 2007, the Ice melt was more extreme than the it was in 2008 and in 2009 for the same date, the ice melt is less extreme yet. To me this seems to indicate slowing since the melt amount has been less in each of three succesive years.

Does it indicate something else to you?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090818_Figure2.png

Less ice melt recently? Is that what you're asking? A little, yes, but overall much less ice coverage as the graph you posted clearly indicates.

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

 

[Chris]

Less ice melt recently? Is that what you're asking? A little, yes, but overall much less ice coverage as the graph you posted clearly indicates.

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

They really are grasping at straws, aren't they?

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and the earth's orbit has changed such that we should have been cooling for the last 20 years, and yet the ice keeps melting, and the temperatures keep rising.

 

[code1211]

Less ice melt recently? Is that what you're asking? A little, yes, but overall much less ice coverage as the graph you posted clearly indicates.

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

I read your statement the first time and didn't see the importance then and don't now. You seem to think that it was more important that on August 8 the ice was less by comparisson to previous years than it was on August 17 when it was greater. Is that your point?

As of August 17, about a week after your featured point, the ice extent was greater than it was in either 2007 or 2008. As is pointed out by Chris and Rocks often, if the ice is melting, it must be warmer. What if the ice is not melting? From the same article we are both quoting in the lead sentence:

quote:

During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.

end quote.

Please note that the author is saying exactly what I said in my original post. I'm not at all sure what you are trying to point out.

 

[code1211]

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

They really are grasping at straws, aren't they?

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and the earth's orbit has changed such that we should have been cooling for the last 20 years, and yet the ice keeps melting, and the temperatures keep rising.

You keep repeating this nonsense. The orbit of the Earth is gradually becoming less eliptical and more circular. When the orbit is at its most eleiptical, Ice Ages begin. When it is most circular, Interglacials occur. Of the three Milankovitch Cycles, this one is called Eccentricity.

Using only the eccentricity as a predicter, we should be warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentricity_(orbit)
Climatic effect
Orbital mechanics require that the duration of the seasons be proportional to the area of the Earth's orbit swept between the solstices and equinoxes, so when the orbital eccentricity is extreme, the seasons that occur on the far side of the orbit (aphelion) can be substantially longer in duration. Today, northern hemisphere fall and winter occur at closest approach (perihelion), when the earth is moving at its maximum velocity. As a result, in the northern hemisphere, fall and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer. In 2006, summer was 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than fall.[citation needed] Axial precession slowly changes the place in the Earth's orbit where the solstices and equinoxes occur. Over the next 10,000 years, northern hemisphere winters will become gradually longer and summers will become shorter. Any cooling effect, however, will be counteracted by the fact that the eccentricity of Earth's orbit will be almost halved, reducing the mean orbital radius and raising temperatures in both hemispheres closer to the mid-interglacial peak.

 

[Chris]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.
"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

 

[code1211]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.
"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

I understand that you are quoting a source. What I am saying is that the source is wrong. There are three Milankovitch Cycles. One is the shape of the orbit. One is the tilt of the axis away from vertical relative to the plane of the orbit. This tilt is what creates seasons as the North or the South Hemispheres recieve more or less direct light.

The third cycle deals with the "wobble" of the axis and changes the direction that the axis points relative to the Sun at any particualar point in the orbit. This one does not have much impact on climate except that every four hundred thousand years or so, the seasons in the north and the south are reversed. You shouldn't need to adjust you vacation plans next year.

The shape of the orbit is becoming more circular and that will cause planetary warming absent any other influences.

The Axial tilt is becoming less. If the tilt was 0 degrees, the axis would be vertical and the seasons would not change at all. The tilt currently varies between about 22 degrees and about 24.5 degrees. The higher the number of the tilt, the greater the "leaning" of the axis from vertical. When the axis moves closer to the minimum number, that is, closer to verical, one would expect the north to get cooler due to less direct light.

That said, this cycle varies within its range across 41,000 years. About 20 thousand years to fully lean and about 20 thousand years to return to the more vertical. The change this century to which your author refers is about 2.5 tenths of 1 percent of that rougly 2.5 degree cycle. This is equal to 6 100's of one degree which is very roughly about 30 feet.

In other words, not much. To cite this as an influence that is being overcome is ridiculous.

Again, I hate to think that experts are deliberately trying to mislead, but this is a disingenuous presetation of the facts in the extreme and, assuming these folks are experts, they know this to be true and are intentionally leaving out important information.

Axial tilt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This means a range of the obliquity from 22° 38’ to 24° 21’, the last maximum was reached in 8700 BC, the mean value occurred around 1550 and the next minimum will be in 11800. This formula should give a reasonable approximation for the previous and next million years or so. Yet it remains an approximation in which the amplitude of the wave remains the same, while in reality, as seen from the results of the Milankovitch cycles, irregular variations occur. The quoted range for the obliquity is from 21° 30’ to 24° 30’, but the low value may have been a one-time overshot of the normal 22° 30’.

File:AxialTiltObliquity.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sinatra]

The Arctic ice thinning has slowed down considerably.

Such is not the case with Chris's hair...

 

[Liability]

What happens next, after the rate of Arctic Ice melting slows to a stop?

Is it POSSIBLE that Arctic Ice might start to accumulate?

 

[k2skier]

Merely pointing out that the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is at a level this year that indicates that it has been increasing for the last 2 years. This in the face of increasing CO2 in the air and now the outgassing of methane from the Arctic. El Nino rearing up again, also. In spite of all of this, the Ice Extent increases year to year to year.

The mantra seems to indicate that increased CO2 and Methane will increase the global temperature. This is said to be a function of physics and and is supported by 85% of all scientists. When something is guarenteed to happen by the prestige of those who are making the prediction, I feel like we should probably seek a result that will either confirm or undermine their expertise.

What does this result indicate?

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

I read your statement the first time and didn't see the importance then and don't now. You seem to think that it was more important that on August 8 the ice was less by comparisson to previous years than it was on August 17 when it was greater. Is that your point?

As of August 17, about a week after your featured point, the ice extent was greater than it was in either 2007 or 2008. As is pointed out by Chris and Rocks often, if the ice is melting, it must be warmer. What if the ice is not melting? From the same article we are both quoting in the lead sentence:

quote:

During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.

end quote.

Please note that the author is saying exactly what I said in my original post. I'm not at all sure what you are trying to point out.

the blue highlighted part

 

[code1211]

Wow you just don't get it, READ the whole link I first posted please.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.

I read your statement the first time and didn't see the importance then and don't now. You seem to think that it was more important that on August 8 the ice was less by comparisson to previous years than it was on August 17 when it was greater. Is that your point?

As of August 17, about a week after your featured point, the ice extent was greater than it was in either 2007 or 2008. As is pointed out by Chris and Rocks often, if the ice is melting, it must be warmer. What if the ice is not melting? From the same article we are both quoting in the lead sentence:

quote:

During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.

end quote.

Please note that the author is saying exactly what I said in my original post. I'm not at all sure what you are trying to point out.

the blue highlighted part

Which is (again) exactly what I said.