Arctic ice thins dramatically

[ScienceRocks]

 

[wirebender]

The arctic hasn't been ice free for at least a million years.

Maybe not, but the pole itself has had open water regularly wince we began observations. And face it, for most of earth's history, the pole has been ice free. At the north pole particularly, ice is the anomoly, not the norm. You guys carry on as if we aren't, and haven't been exiting an ice age for the past 14K years. You act as if melting ice were something brand new and terrifying. As you can see from the naval photos, open water the pole isn't odd at all. Wringing your hands over natural cycles is just silly.

As to your claim that the arctic has not been ice free for a million years; I would suggest that by your own fears of slight temperature variations rendering the arctic ice free, you should conclude that the arctic was indeed, in all likelyhood, ice free during both the roman and the medieval warm periods. Further, the Vostok ice core data show numerous times during the past 450,000 years where the temperatures in that region of the world were considerably warmer than even the roman and medieval warm periods.

Here are a couple of peer reviewed studies relating to the time of the MWP only in the arctic. I don't believe your claims of a million years since the arctic was ice free stand up to the data. And in terms of earth history, what is a million years anyway. It is like saying the arctic hasn't been ice free for three hours or so.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nrc/cjes/2008/00000045/00000011/art00015

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379103002956

 

[Old Rocks]

I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice. Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free. The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.

Boy, Bent, you are about as dumb of a fuck as they come. First, the Arctic has not been ice free for at least 120,000 years, more than likely, not for over a million years.

Second, the albedo of ice is such that it reflects 90% of the sunlight, open water absorbs 90%. Now I realize the concept of feedback is beyond your intellect, but for the rest of us the implications are clear.

 

[Old Rocks]

The arctic hasn't been ice free for at least a million years.

Maybe not, but the pole itself has had open water regularly wince we began observations. And face it, for most of earth's history, the pole has been ice free. At the north pole particularly, ice is the anomoly, not the norm. You guys carry on as if we aren't, and haven't been exiting an ice age for the past 14K years. You act as if melting ice were something brand new and terrifying. As you can see from the naval photos, open water the pole isn't odd at all. Wringing your hands over natural cycles is just silly.

As to your claim that the arctic has not been ice free for a million years; I would suggest that by your own fears of slight temperature variations rendering the arctic ice free, you should conclude that the arctic was indeed, in all likelyhood, ice free during both the roman and the medieval warm periods. Further, the Vostok ice core data show numerous times during the past 450,000 years where the temperatures in that region of the world were considerably warmer than even the roman and medieval warm periods.

Here are a couple of peer reviewed studies relating to the time of the MWP only in the arctic. I don't believe your claims of a million years since the arctic was ice free stand up to the data. And in terms of earth history, what is a million years anyway. It is like saying the arctic hasn't been ice free for three hours or so.

ingentaconnect Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based rec...

ScienceDirect - Quaternary Science Reviews : Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0–180°W)*1

Incredibly stupid and duplicious statement. You can pick any point in the Arctic Ocean and see a short time there is open water there in the summer.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.003.png

 

[Old Rocks]

Less extensive, not gone.

ingentaconnect Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based rec...

Abstract:

Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, δ13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near-surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (~156cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600-7200cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500-3000years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

Compared to the end of the twentieth century, not the first decade of the 21st century. A very important differance.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good article, but predates the very rapid melt of the Artic Ice that we have seen in the last eight years. And I see no claim for the Artic being ice free at all. The last sentance is particularly teling.

Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0–180°W)*1
Purchase
$ 35.95


References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


D. S. Kaufman , , a, T. A. Ager b, N. J. Anderson c, P. M. Anderson d, J. T. Andrews e, P. J. Bartlein f, L. B. Brubaker g, L. L. Coats h, L. C. Cwynar i, M. L. Duvall j, A. S. Dyke k, M. E. Edwards l, W. R. Eisner m, K. Gajewski n, A. Geirsdóttir o, F. S. Hu p, A. E. Jennings e, M. R. Kaplan q, M. W. Kerwin r, A. V. Lozhkin s, G. M. MacDonald t, G. H. Miller e, C. J. Mock u, W. W. Oswald d, B. L. Otto-Bliesner v, D. F. Porinchu w, K. Rühland x, J. P. Smol x, E. J. Steig d and B. B. Wolfe y

a Departments of Geology and Environmental Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4099, USA

b US Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USA

c Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

d Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

e Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

f Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA

g College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

h Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USA

i Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada

j Department of Geology, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA

k Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada

l Institute of Geography, University of Trondheim, Norway

m Department of Geography, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

n Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

o Department of Geosciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

p Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA

q School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, UK

r Department of Geography, University of Denver, Colorado, USA

s Northeast Interdisciplinary Science Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Magadan, Russia

t Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angelas, USA

u Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

v National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

w Department of Geography, California State University, Long Beach, USA

x Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., Canada

y Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ont., Canada

Received 29 April 2003; accepted 16 September 2003. Available online 19 February 2004.

Abstract
The spatio-temporal pattern of peak Holocene warmth (Holocene thermal maximum, HTM) is traced over 140 sites across the Western Hemisphere of the Arctic (0–180°W; north of 60°N). Paleoclimate inferences based on a wide variety of proxy indicators provide clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 of these sites. At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6±0.8°C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century), but the warming was time-transgressive across the western Arctic. As the precession-driven summer insolation anomaly peaked 12–10 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), warming was concentrated in northwest North America, while cool conditions lingered in the northeast. Alaska and northwest Canada experienced the HTM between ca 11 and 9 ka, about 4000 yr prior to the HTM in northeast Canada. The delayed warming in Quebec and Labrador was linked to the residual Laurentide Ice Sheet, which chilled the region through its impact on surface energy balance and ocean circulation. The lingering ice also attests to the inherent asymmetry of atmospheric and oceanic circulation that predisposes the region to glaciation and modulates the pattern of climatic change. The spatial asymmetry of warming during the HTM resembles the pattern of warming observed in the Arctic over the last several decades. Although the two warmings are described at different temporal scales, and the HTM was additionally affected by the residual Laurentide ice, the similarities suggest there might be a preferred mode of variability in the atmospheric circulation that generates a recurrent pattern of warming under positive radiative forcing. Unlike the HTM, however, future warming will not be counterbalanced by the cooling effect of a residual North American ice sheet.

 

[skookerasbil]

C'mon........it's loss of ice in the Arctic and gain of ice in the Antarctic ( except in one little area ).

So.......what..............?

Only the k00ks get all hysterical about it.


And so what either way? Nobody is going to do dick about it even if we were 100% certain. The UN just last week admitted that going green would cost all of the nations of earth............ready for this............76 trillion dollars.


C'mon............whats the point of even deliberating on this shit???


C'mon..............if it cost 1/10 of that we couldnt afford it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

C'mon........it's loss of ice in the Arctic and gain of ice in the Antarctic ( except in one little area ).

So.......what..............?

Only the k00ks get all hysterical about it.


And so what either way? Nobody is going to do dick about it even if we were 100% certain. The UN just last week admitted that going green would cost all of the nations of earth............ready for this............76 trillion dollars.


C'mon............whats the point of even deliberating on this shit???


C'mon..............if it cost 1/10 of that we couldnt afford it.

Maybe it's because I enjoy watching our planet and learning about the processes of how and why it works? I find it very interesting.

 

[wirebender]

I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice. Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free. The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.

Boy, Bent, you are about as dumb of a fuck as they come. First, the Arctic has not been ice free for at least 120,000 years, more than likely, not for over a million years.

Second, the albedo of ice is such that it reflects 90% of the sunlight, open water absorbs 90%. Now I realize the concept of feedback is beyond your intellect, but for the rest of us the implications are clear.

And still you have not even begun to prove that mankind has had any effect at all on the climate. I have proven mathematically, using the laws of physics that the atmosphere can not warm the earth. To date, none of you warmist, or lukewarmers have even touched my proof, much less begun to prove me wrong.

I am laughing at the lot of you rocks.

By the way, if the arctic was ice

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am not sure why the angst over the arctic ice. Historically, it isn't unusual for the pole to be ice free. The hysteria over the northern ice is baseless and little more than a boogie man to scare little kids with.

Boy, Bent, you are about as dumb of a fuck as they come. First, the Arctic has not been ice free for at least 120,000 years, more than likely, not for over a million years.

Second, the albedo of ice is such that it reflects 90% of the sunlight, open water absorbs 90%. Now I realize the concept of feedback is beyond your intellect, but for the rest of us the implications are clear.

And still you have not even begun to prove that mankind has had any effect at all on the climate. I have proven mathematically, using the laws of physics that the atmosphere can not warm the earth. To date, none of you warmist, or lukewarmers have even touched my proof, much less begun to prove me wrong.

I am laughing at the lot of you rocks.

By the way, if the arctic was ice

Wire, lets say your right and all these scientist are all wrong---You and the rest of science must then start the painstaking task of having to find out why the planet has warmed the past 30 years came from. What is variable z--- I keep harping on? That is the why and the forcing for any warming...

What I'm saying is that the sun reached its peak in tsi in the 1950's and have slowly been sloping downwards since. You can't explain .4c of warming in 30 years after 1860-1940(80 years) only had .4c its self over a period nearly 2 1/2 times as long as 1980-2010.

The sun was found to be only 60 percent of the Dalton to 1950 warming too. 40 percent is the "z" variable.

You disprove something when at the same time there is forcing that's not coming from the sun then you need to find the why. It would be a mess as we would need to find what is causing the temperature to rise at the same time it supposed to be sloping downwards with the decrease of tsi. 2004-2011 is another can of fish!

That CAN of fish is the biggest single sun minimum since 1909-1915 of course. On top of China and India output of negative forcing sulfur that has been proven to have cooled the planet in the 1950-1970 period of .1 to .15c, even with the fact that most of this period layed in the highest tsi in 1,000+ years or more. Now we've got both biting away at any positive that we would have now and a slowly rising global temperature still.

So lets say your right then wth is the z? I can't disprove you wrong---I sure wish someone that could would show where you could be wrong, but if your right then there is still the z. The variable of the massive positive forcing that is causing the rising temperature against more negative forcing then the combined tsi decrease of the past 50 years+biggest solar min since 1910s+sulfur that we have proven that cooled the planet .1-.15c within the 1950-1970 period. Must be one big Z.

Yes it is important and must be answered if z turns out not to be co2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

07,10,2011,7995156

Down nearly 100,000 km for today

07,10,2011,7995938

 

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover. Average ice extent fell below that for June 2007, which had the lowest minimum ice extent at the end of summer. However, ice extent this year was greater than in June 2010. The sea ice has entered a critical period of the melt season: weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.

Average ice extent for June 2011 was 11.01 million square kilometers (4.25 million square miles). This is 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in June 2010, and 2.15 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the average for 1979 to 2000.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[wirebender]

Wire, lets say your right and all these scientist are all wrong---You and the rest of science must then start the painstaking task of having to find out why the planet has warmed the past 30 years came from. What is variable z--- I keep harping on? That is the why and the forcing for any warming...

Matthew, I don't pretend to know why the earth is warming. I don't know why the warming trend began 14,000 years ago or why it has moved forward in a warmer cooler pattern since. I don't know why the earth decends into ice ages or what triggers the exit from the ice ages. I don't pretend to "know" any of those things and am insulted by climate scientists who do.

What I do know is the basic science upon which the claims of AGW and greenhouse effects must rest. The laws of physics are not compromises and they apply to all matter, not just systems. The law of conservation of energy, for precludes a planet surface which is nothing like a perfect reflector, which receives 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source somehow radiating nearly double that amount of energy. It just can't happen and anyone who claims that it can is either a deliberate liar or grossly misinformed.

The why of climate change is at best, a curiosity. We are along for the ride. It might be nice to know in advance of long term warming trends so that we can prepare, but nothing we can do can either alter natural climactic trends nor reverse them.

You disprove something when at the same time there is forcing that's not coming from the sun then you need to find the why.

Beyond curiosity, why do you need to know the why. The laws of physics tell you that you are not the cause. That being the case, it is clear that there is nothing you can do to alter it. Hell, we can't even prevent a summer shower on the company picknic, much less alter global climate.

That CAN of fish is the biggest single sun minimum since 1909-1915 of course. On top of China and India output of negative forcing sulfur that has been proven to have cooled the planet in the 1950-1970 period of .1 to .15c, even with the fact that most of this period layed in the highest tsi in 1,000+ years or more. Now we've got both biting away at any positive that we would have now and a slowly rising global temperature still.

Actually, like most climate science, no such proof of cooling exists. It is just one more assumption. No one can say with anything like authority that the cooling was due to coal as no one knows, all of the possible variables and permutations.

I can't disprove you wrong---I sure wish someone that could would show where you could be wrong, but if your right then there is still the z.

To date, no one has proven me wrong and I have made the same sort of arguments in many locations with people who were far above the level (in science and mathematics) of the people here. My arguments are not my own hypotheses. They are based on straight forward applications of the laws of physics. There is no mumbo jumbo, or double talk, or slick sideshow pseudoexperimental evidence. I have done the math and neither myself, nor anyone who has looked at the math can point to an error or a misapplied law of physics.

There is a reason that you have to look pretty hard to find an actual physicist or chemist who buys into either AGW or the greenhouse effect. Those educated in the hard sciences are grilled in the basics. The laws of physics determine what is and is not possible and anyone who looks at the hypotheses of AGW or the greenhouse effect from fundamental principles must find that both fail.

The variable of the massive posiive forcing that is causing the rising temperature against more negative forcing then the combined tsi decrease of the past 50 years+biggest solar min since 1910s+sulfur that we have proven that cooled the planet .1-.15c within the 1950-1970 period. Must be one big Z.

We have not proven that sulfur cooled the planet. That is just one assumption among thousands that make up climate pseudoscience. When proof doesn't exist, they simply program a computer model to provide "proof" to support their claims.

 

[ScienceRocks]

natural or man made---lets watch the sea ice.

 

[ScienceRocks]

07,11,2011,7895000

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is your map for 7-12

 

[wirebender]

Here is your map for 7-12

Question. What does any of this prove other than that a natural cycle is progressing?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is your map for 7-12

Question. What does any of this prove other than that a natural cycle is progressing?

It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?

 

[wirebender]

It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?

Being a natural cycle, it just seems analogous to watcing grass grow or paint dry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is cool to watch As this the environmental forum anyways, so what is wrong with watching it natural or otherwise?

Being a natural cycle, it just seems analogous to watcing grass grow or paint dry.

I'm one of those people that watch weather as one of my hobbies as I been doing it since 8 years old. I like watching tropical cyclones, tornadoes, and yes snow and ice storms. yes---some times even paint dry!