Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Chris]

Trust me, no one cares.

And changing the subject won't work.

 

[IanC]

arctic temps much higher than today from less than 100 years ago is changing the subject? or just not in line with your thinking?

 

[Old Rocks]

Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far.

The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.

 

[IanC]

Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far.

The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.

Silliness? I can understand that you want to judge the editing skills by today's standards but it is a little more difficult to wave your hand at first person accounts of bare land and warm water in the Arctic only 90 years ago, which was not caused by CO2.

 

[IanC]

very cool article from 1873 discussing the arctic and finding Mastadon remains.

Papers Past — Southland Times — 28 March 1873 — ARCTIC DISCOVERT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unknown polar continent? Come on, Ian, that is going a bit too far.

The melting of the Arctic Ice is a fact that is being observed from satellites from several nations. Red herrings like you just posted only indicate the silliness of your position.

1979 to present. lets see that is 41 years worth of recorded data, YA that is telling on a planet BILLIONS of years old. As for the news article that proves your 41 years of recorded data is worthless when claiming shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the scientists say about the extent of the Arctic ice in the past few hundred years.

Arctic sea ice before satellites « Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

Jan 31, 2011Katherine LeitzellArctic sea ice before satellites

Last week, a reader of Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis asked what we know about Arctic sea ice extent before the satellite records began in 1979. Those records show that Arctic sea ice has been declining at an increasing pace since 1979—enough data to see a strong signal of climate change. But scientists also want to know what sea ice was like before satellites were there to observe it. Mark Serreze, NSIDC director and research scientist, said, “The better we understand how the climate system behaved in the past, the better we can understand and place into context what is happening today.”

What do we know about sea ice conditions before 1979, and how do we know that?

Historical data on sea ice
Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages.

To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boy, are the arguements of those in denial getting silly.

First, "It ain't Happening, no matter what them thar librul scientists say"

Second, "If it is happening, we don't have anything to do with it"

Third, "And if we are causing it, it is too expensive to change course now, no matter what it costs later"

And fourth, and most ridiculous of all, "It will be good for us anyway, no matter how catastrophic the results"

 

[Avorysuds]

Boy, are the arguements of those in denial getting silly.

First, "It ain't Happening, no matter what them thar librul scientists say"
Second, "If it is happening, we don't have anything to do with it"

Third, "And if we are causing it, it is too expensive to change course now, no matter what it costs later"

And fourth, and most ridiculous of all, "It will be good for us anyway, no matter how catastrophic the results"

I bolded the part that matters. The rest you for the most part made up, no one argues the rest of your points realisticly.

Here is one for you...

Liberals: It's Global cooling!

Liberals: It's Global warming!

Liberals: It's Clemet change!



"Global warming has brought in a new ice age!"

 

[Grace]

Ostrich, Head, Sand.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ostrich, Head, Sand.

Let me know when something serious happens then...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

So.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Great old thread

 

[mal]

That it is...



peace...

 

[IanC]

Reference
Chylek, P., Folland, C.K., Lesins, G., Dubey, M.K. and Wang, M. 2009. Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038777. Chylek et al. write that "one of the robust features of the AOGCMs [Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models] is the finding that the temperature increase in the Arctic is larger than the global average, which is attributed in part to the ice/snow-albedo temperature feedback." More specifically, they say "the surface air temperature change in the Arctic is predicted to be about two to three times the global mean," citing the IPCC (2007). In conducting their own study of this feature, the authors utilized Arctic surface air temperature data from 37 meteorological stations north of 64°N, Chylek et al. explored the latitudinal variability in Arctic temperatures within two belts -- the low Arctic (64°N-70°N) and the high Arctic (70°N-90°N) -- comparing them with mean global air temperatures over three sequential periods: 1910-1940 (warming), 1940-1970 (cooling) and 1970-2008 (warming).
In harmony with state-of-the-art AOGCM simulations, the five researchers report that "the Arctic has indeed warmed during the 1970-2008 period by a factor of two to three faster than the global mean." More precisely, the Arctic amplification factor was 2.0 for the low Arctic and 2.9 for the high Arctic. But that is the end of the real world's climate-change agreement with theory. During the 1910-1940 warming, for example, the low Arctic warmed 5.4 times faster than the global mean, while the high Arctic warmed 6.9 times faster. Even more out of line with climate model simulations were the real-world Arctic amplification factors for the 1940-1970 cooling: 9.0 for the low Arctic and 12.5 for the high Arctic.

These findings constitute another important example of the principle described (and proven to be correct) by Reifen and Toumi (2009), i.e., that a model that performs well in one time period will not necessarily perform well in another time period. And this now-incontrovertible fact further suggests that since AOGCMs suffer from this shortcoming, they ought not be considered adequate justification for imposing dramatic cuts in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as their simulations of future temperature trends may well be far different from what will actually transpire.

oh dear! GRL is publishing this sort of thing? paradigm shift in progress.

I wonder how many of the models are functioning over the known range rather than just run for accurate predictions today? always in the first year of a 100 year prediction, hahahaha

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet

 

[westwall]

Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet

Oh boy, a article from 2010 reporting on work that was done in 2009 and before....a little dated there olfraud a little dated but thanks for playing.

 

[IanC]

Well Ian, the ice for the present is certainly below what it has been in recorded history.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Our Amazing Planet

just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922? are we to ignore first hand accounts for models and proxies again? like Mann's Hockey Stick and the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. no sense believing people who actually saw it when you can do a study with proxies, right?

 

[Trakar]

...just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922?...

Looking at the data from the Arctic Climate Research Department at the University of Illinois, the ice coverage at minima in 1922 was about 10 and a half million kilometers, about twice what the coverage was last summer.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


You can see them for yourself.

 

[IanC]

...just out of curiousity, what sort of figures did that study have for 1922?...

Looking at the data from the Arctic Climate Research Department at the University of Illinois, the ice coverage at minima in 1922 was about 10 and a half million kilometers, about twice what the coverage was last summer.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


You can see them for yourself.

the problem with your graphs and data tables is that they dont match up with eyewitness accounts. how were they measuring the ice fields in the pre-aeroplane era?