Arctic ice thins dramatically

arctic ice thins dramatically- hmmmmm

back in the twenties there were newspaper articles describing drastic reduction of arctic ice yet the 'official' records dont reflect any of it. much like the medieval records that describe conditions that many 'official' reconstructions denounce. why do we believe proxies over records of first hand experience? especially when those records had no idea that they would be involved many years in the future? and when the proxies (especially treerings) would show recent cooling if instrumental measurements werent spliced on at convenient times?

I wish climate scientists would act more like scientists and less like lawyers trying to put their client in the best possible light.

Link?






Here's the NOAA page for the November 1922 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW.
But hey, they're scientists...they don't know anything.

"The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from
fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas
about S itzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to
a radicaf change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-
of high temperatures in that part of the earth's
surface.
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Departnient of Commerce
sent an expedition to Spitzber en and Bear Island
geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose
was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the
Nqrwegian niines on those islands, take soundings of the
ad] acent waters, and niake ot-her oceanographic. investigations.
Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location
of hitherto unknown coal de osits on the eastern shores
of Advent Bay-deposits or vast extent and superior
uality.%,This is regarded as of first importance, as so
?ar most of the coal mined by the Norwegian companies
on those islands has not been of the best quality.


The oceanographic observations have, however, been
even more iiiterestinm. Ice conditions were exce tional.
In fact, so little icexas never before been note!. The
expedition all but established a record, sailing as far
north its Sl0 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest
north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
The character of the waters of the great polar basin
has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports
that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81'
north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it
could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st
parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it robable
time.
Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear
Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold
current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen
off the south ca e.
to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway
and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who
has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says
that he first noted wanner conditions in 1915, that since
that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day
the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same
re ion of 1865 to 1917.
%any old landniarks are so changed EW to be weco
nizltble. Where formerly great masses of ice were foun
there are now often moraines, accumlulations of earth and
stones."

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
 
Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?

We aren't seeing extremes.

arctic_sea_ice_extent5.jpg


red line is observation since 1950. I will look for even longer term data.
 
07,16,2011,7346563

-94,218 km decreased between 7-15 to 7-16.

This is how July looked in 2007

07,01,2007,9288906
07,02,2007,9126875 -162
07,03,2007,8925000 -202
07,04,2007,8794063 -131
07,05,2007,8704219 -90
07,06,2007,8611094 -93
07,07,2007,8529844 -81
07,08,2007,8455000 -75
07,09,2007,8369063 -76
07,10,2007,8233906 -136
07,11,2007,8125156 -88
07,12,2007,8015156 -100
07,13,2007,7881250 -134
07,14,2007,7785000 -96
07,15,2007,7690313 -95
07,16,2007,7592500 -78
07,17,2007,7498594 -94
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92
07,21,2007,7167656 -104
07,22,2007,7066406 -101
07,23,2007,6972031 -94
07,24,2007,6858125 -114
07,25,2007,6781250 -77
07,26,2007,6688594 -93
07,27,2007,6594844 -94
07,28,2007,6527969 -67
07,29,2007,6479375 -48
07,30,2007,6428125 -51
07,31,2007,6375313 -53
 
Last edited:
I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...

Your rather suspect chart in post #1145 shows ice extent dropping drastically since 1990. IF this was the case in reality do you really think Ice Road truckers would be on the air? How about the fact that one year they report drastic ice loss and make bold scary claims, only have the year end in a completely different manner? They do not advertise their mistakes or errors and you don't believe anyone who shows them to you. See the problem?

And whats worse is most of you AGW faithful seem to work on the same twisted logic. You make an assumption that 4-5 degrees temperature change will melt the ice caps. Lets get some perspective on that shall we... Whats the average arctic temp in February? Not sure and I don't want to google it so lets just say its freaking cold and around -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure its probably colder but I just want a simple number to work with here. So at -10 F and we lose 5 degrees of that rather abruptly making it -5 degrees Fahrenheit. So does it melt the ice? Hmm, not sure but I think we will still have the ice don't you? -10 or -5 we will still have ice maybe it won't cover out as far but its still going to be there and we will still make more on top of the old ice nearer the center of the poles.

But wait! there's more... Turns out that ice thickness has more to do with precipitation than it does with temperature. You know why? Because there has to be water to make ice. You forget that the ocean water is just part of the equation here. Ocean water freezes around 28.8 F and fresh water around 32 degrees F. So if its still -5 F it will still freeze won't it.... And you take into account the amount of snowfall in the area in a given season and bingo, you get a much clearer picture.

The problem with most of the crap coming out of the places with a vested interest in studying these types of things is they measure ice. They too often do not bother to take things like precipitation into account when they release their scary charts. You know why? Because 30 years ago no one paid attention to their work and there was little money in it. No money means fewer people going into the field, less funding for their research and no big fancy places for them gather and work out their hypothesis like Hadley. No IPCC either... Follow me? IN the last 20 years they got all kinds of press and interest and money just rolls in for their research. All they gotta do is slap a climate change badge on it and it sells.

Rich people have consciences and need a place to put money they don't want uncle same to get. And now they get tax breaks and incentives to encourage them to invest in projects like these. Why? well uncle sams politicians aren't scientists and frankly half of them either don't care to know or haven't the time to research it. Then they are told by an expert they hire (who happens to be a climate scientist) that it would be a good idea to give incentives to people who help fund research on climate change. And of course it looks good and gets the environmentalists votes too. SO they get em their incentives.

Dude this is a big problem that none of you guys seem to be able to realize. You all seem to put on your blinders and not look past them and see whats on the left or right. They tell you "its good for the planet" or "the ice is melting and soon florida will be gone" and you put on your activist help the planet mentality and away you go. Seriously man, do you really believe that the only proper scientists in the world worth listening to are the ones that have a vested interest in this?
 
Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?

We aren't seeing extremes.

The Missouri and Mississippi have been in flood from the heatwaters to the Gulf since May. And will remain so until mid-September, provided we don't get more rain.

Last summers drougth in Russia destroyed 40% of their grain crop. This summers flooding the Northern Plains and South will destroy a significant percentage of US crops. Throw in what the drought in Texas has done there.

Australia lost a significant portion of their agriculture when about 1/4 of that nation flooded at the beginning of this year.

Then there is the little matter of the number and size of the tornados this year.

Yes. some real extremes, and all in a 12 month period.
 
I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...

Your rather suspect chart in post #1145 shows ice extent dropping drastically since 1990. IF this was the case in reality do you really think Ice Road truckers would be on the air? How about the fact that one year they report drastic ice loss and make bold scary claims, only have the year end in a completely different manner? They do not advertise their mistakes or errors and you don't believe anyone who shows them to you. See the problem?

And whats worse is most of you AGW faithful seem to work on the same twisted logic. You make an assumption that 4-5 degrees temperature change will melt the ice caps. Lets get some perspective on that shall we... Whats the average arctic temp in February? Not sure and I don't want to google it so lets just say its freaking cold and around -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure its probably colder but I just want a simple number to work with here. So at -10 F and we lose 5 degrees of that rather abruptly making it -5 degrees Fahrenheit. So does it melt the ice? Hmm, not sure but I think we will still have the ice don't you? -10 or -5 we will still have ice maybe it won't cover out as far but its still going to be there and we will still make more on top of the old ice nearer the center of the poles.

But wait! there's more... Turns out that ice thickness has more to do with precipitation than it does with temperature. You know why? Because there has to be water to make ice. You forget that the ocean water is just part of the equation here. Ocean water freezes around 28.8 F and fresh water around 32 degrees F. So if its still -5 F it will still freeze won't it.... And you take into account the amount of snowfall in the area in a given season and bingo, you get a much clearer picture.

The problem with most of the crap coming out of the places with a vested interest in studying these types of things is they measure ice. They too often do not bother to take things like precipitation into account when they release their scary charts. You know why? Because 30 years ago no one paid attention to their work and there was little money in it. No money means fewer people going into the field, less funding for their research and no big fancy places for them gather and work out their hypothesis like Hadley. No IPCC either... Follow me? IN the last 20 years they got all kinds of press and interest and money just rolls in for their research. All they gotta do is slap a climate change badge on it and it sells.

Rich people have consciences and need a place to put money they don't want uncle same to get. And now they get tax breaks and incentives to encourage them to invest in projects like these. Why? well uncle sams politicians aren't scientists and frankly half of them either don't care to know or haven't the time to research it. Then they are told by an expert they hire (who happens to be a climate scientist) that it would be a good idea to give incentives to people who help fund research on climate change. And of course it looks good and gets the environmentalists votes too. SO they get em their incentives.

Dude this is a big problem that none of you guys seem to be able to realize. You all seem to put on your blinders and not look past them and see whats on the left or right. They tell you "its good for the planet" or "the ice is melting and soon florida will be gone" and you put on your activist help the planet mentality and away you go. Seriously man, do you really believe that the only proper scientists in the world worth listening to are the ones that have a vested interest in this?

You are full of shit as usual.



Detecting Climate Change in Canadian Ice Data



Abstract


The Canadian Ice Service maintains an archive of ice thickness measurements collected over the period 1947-1998. The ice measuring stations are located at various lakes, rivers, and oceans throughout Canada. The author analyzed these measurements for the purpose of detecting long-term climate trends. A Java program calculates the ice centimeter-days for each winter season. The ice archive shows that the climate of Canada became warmer during the study period, and that this warming trend has accelerated in recent years.



Introduction


The science of climatology uses various methods to recover historic records of temperatures in a region. Some of these methods involve measurements taken by humans and recorded for later use. The Canadian Ice Service has a web site at http://www.cis.ec.gc.ca/index.html that provides an on-line archive ice thickness measurements taken at numerous bodies of water in Canada. I discovered this archive on the Internet and decided to analyze it as a research project for a course in meteorology.



At this writing it is well accepted in the scientific community that the earths climate is warming up. The cause of the warming is a matter of debate; some scientists point to human activity as a major cause of global warming, while others suggest that the global increase in temperature is primarily natural. I did not expect to overturn the general scientific consensus by this project, nor to prove or disprove the human link. The purpose was to examine the data and see what it would reveal about global warming.



Climate influences both the length of a winter season and its severity (how cold it gets). Knowing this, I wanted to use a metric that would reflect both the number of winter days with ice cover, and the thickness of the ice itself.I decided to create and use the metric ice centimeter-days by multiplying the thickness by the number of days with that thickness. Ice centimeter-days are similar to degree-days.
 
gore_hockeystick_fig1.JPG


Since 1900!!! of course this is the maximum and the one above is the min.






Any submarines surfacing at the Northpole yet? Looks like that graph is a little suspect.

Ever look at real science, Walleyes?

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Both Arctic and Anarctic sea ice in very negative territory. Both the Northwest and Northeast Passages look like they may be open by the end of this month.
 
Who's to say that watching the natural cycles and the extremes within them aren't interesting?

We aren't seeing extremes.

The Missouri and Mississippi have been in flood from the heatwaters to the Gulf since May. And will remain so until mid-September, provided we don't get more rain.

Last summers drougth in Russia destroyed 40% of their grain crop. This summers flooding the Northern Plains and South will destroy a significant percentage of US crops. Throw in what the drought in Texas has done there.

Australia lost a significant portion of their agriculture when about 1/4 of that nation flooded at the beginning of this year.

Then there is the little matter of the number and size of the tornados this year.

Yes. some real extremes, and all in a 12 month period.





The Mississippi flood plain is 200 miles wide. Care to show us where in the last 50 years that expanse has been flooded?
 
gore_hockeystick_fig1.JPG


Since 1900!!! of course this is the maximum and the one above is the min.






Any submarines surfacing at the Northpole yet? Looks like that graph is a little suspect.

Ever look at real science, Walleyes?

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Both Arctic and Anarctic sea ice in very negative territory. Both the Northwest and Northeast Passages look like they may be open by the end of this month.





Yes, that's why I can see the graph has some problems.
 
Any submarines surfacing at the Northpole yet? Looks like that graph is a little suspect.

Ever look at real science, Walleyes?

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Both Arctic and Anarctic sea ice in very negative territory. Both the Northwest and Northeast Passages look like they may be open by the end of this month.





Yes, that's why I can see the graph has some problems.

I googled hadley carter ice graph but it doesnt seem to have much history besides being in algore's pamphlet version of AIT. there was an interesting article on cherrypicking data though
 
I think Matt has let his OCD take over on this... Matt, think about this in the broader scale for a second. Now stay with me here...

Your rather suspect chart in post #1145 shows ice extent dropping drastically since 1990. IF this was the case in reality do you really think Ice Road truckers would be on the air? How about the fact that one year they report drastic ice loss and make bold scary claims, only have the year end in a completely different manner? They do not advertise their mistakes or errors and you don't believe anyone who shows them to you. See the problem?

And whats worse is most of you AGW faithful seem to work on the same twisted logic. You make an assumption that 4-5 degrees temperature change will melt the ice caps. Lets get some perspective on that shall we... Whats the average arctic temp in February? Not sure and I don't want to google it so lets just say its freaking cold and around -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure its probably colder but I just want a simple number to work with here. So at -10 F and we lose 5 degrees of that rather abruptly making it -5 degrees Fahrenheit. So does it melt the ice? Hmm, not sure but I think we will still have the ice don't you? -10 or -5 we will still have ice maybe it won't cover out as far but its still going to be there and we will still make more on top of the old ice nearer the center of the poles.

But wait! there's more... Turns out that ice thickness has more to do with precipitation than it does with temperature. You know why? Because there has to be water to make ice. You forget that the ocean water is just part of the equation here. Ocean water freezes around 28.8 F and fresh water around 32 degrees F. So if its still -5 F it will still freeze won't it.... And you take into account the amount of snowfall in the area in a given season and bingo, you get a much clearer picture.

The problem with most of the crap coming out of the places with a vested interest in studying these types of things is they measure ice. They too often do not bother to take things like precipitation into account when they release their scary charts. You know why? Because 30 years ago no one paid attention to their work and there was little money in it. No money means fewer people going into the field, less funding for their research and no big fancy places for them gather and work out their hypothesis like Hadley. No IPCC either... Follow me? IN the last 20 years they got all kinds of press and interest and money just rolls in for their research. All they gotta do is slap a climate change badge on it and it sells.

Rich people have consciences and need a place to put money they don't want uncle same to get. And now they get tax breaks and incentives to encourage them to invest in projects like these. Why? well uncle sams politicians aren't scientists and frankly half of them either don't care to know or haven't the time to research it. Then they are told by an expert they hire (who happens to be a climate scientist) that it would be a good idea to give incentives to people who help fund research on climate change. And of course it looks good and gets the environmentalists votes too. SO they get em their incentives.

Dude this is a big problem that none of you guys seem to be able to realize. You all seem to put on your blinders and not look past them and see whats on the left or right. They tell you "its good for the planet" or "the ice is melting and soon florida will be gone" and you put on your activist help the planet mentality and away you go. Seriously man, do you really believe that the only proper scientists in the world worth listening to are the ones that have a vested interest in this?

You are full of shit as usual.



Detecting Climate Change in Canadian Ice Data



Abstract


The Canadian Ice Service maintains an archive of ice thickness measurements collected over the period 1947-1998. The ice measuring stations are located at various lakes, rivers, and oceans throughout Canada. The author analyzed these measurements for the purpose of detecting long-term climate trends. A Java program calculates the ice centimeter-days for each winter season. The ice archive shows that the climate of Canada became warmer during the study period, and that this warming trend has accelerated in recent years.



Introduction


The science of climatology uses various methods to recover historic records of temperatures in a region. Some of these methods involve measurements taken by humans and recorded for later use. The Canadian Ice Service has a web site at http://www.cis.ec.gc.ca/index.html that provides an on-line archive ice thickness measurements taken at numerous bodies of water in Canada. I discovered this archive on the Internet and decided to analyze it as a research project for a course in meteorology.



At this writing it is well accepted in the scientific community that the earths climate is warming up. The cause of the warming is a matter of debate; some scientists point to human activity as a major cause of global warming, while others suggest that the global increase in temperature is primarily natural. I did not expect to overturn the general scientific consensus by this project, nor to prove or disprove the human link. The purpose was to examine the data and see what it would reveal about global warming.



Climate influences both the length of a winter season and its severity (how cold it gets). Knowing this, I wanted to use a metric that would reflect both the number of winter days with ice cover, and the thickness of the ice itself.I decided to create and use the metric ice centimeter-days by multiplying the thickness by the number of days with that thickness. Ice centimeter-days are similar to degree-days.

Moron do you really think what I said can be dismissed by using the same biased sources I mention being the problem? Are you really that completely incompetent?

YOU COMPLETE NINCOMPOOP! The the earths movement through its orbital path around the sun and its oscillation/wobble dictate the seasons. If the temp goes up 5 degrees it will not change the rotation or orbit you idiot. A winter season will be the same as long as the orbit is the same. Whether its warmer or colder the first or last days is a matter of current atmospheric conditions and solar output and cosmic radiation. SO at a 5 degree increase what will happen? We lose a day on the end or beginning of ice making winter? LOL gimme a break...:lol:

You just proved my point idiot. You can't post anything but what some scientists tells you is true. You don't have any ability to think. You rely on people whose job and career depends on there being a climate problem to tell you if there is a climate problem and what do you think you will get? A problem...:lol:
 
gs, I understand what your saying, but I enjoy watching the natural cycles. I've spent about 15 years of my life watching different things like this. Not going to stop...It is not because of global warming.

Here is a thickness chart of the sea ice
ictn2011071618_2011072200_035_arcticictn.001.gif
 
Last edited:
Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.

AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover

Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
Martin C. Todd and Anson W. Mackay
Department of Geography, University College London, London, United Kingdom







Abstract

Long-term records of winter ice duration, formation, and breakup dates (1869–1996) and maximum thickness (1950–95) on Lake Baikal are analyzed to determine the nature of temporal trends and the relationship with the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There are highly significant trends of decreasing ice duration (and thickness) over the period, associated with later ice formation and earlier breakup dates. These trends are broadly in line with those of winter air temperatures in the region. Variability in Lake Baikal ice formation date, duration, and thickness is significantly related to winter temperatures over a wide area from the Caspian Sea to the Pacific and from northern India to the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Siberia. Thus, Lake Baikal ice cover is a robust indicator of continental-scale winter climate. Correlation and composite analysis of surface and upper-atmospheric fields reveal that interannual variability in ice cover is associated with a tripolar pattern of upper-level geopotential height anomalies. In years of high (low) ice duration and thickness, significant positive (negative) 700-hPa geopotential height anomalies occur over northern Siberia and the Arctic, complemented by negative (positive) anomalies over central-eastern Asia and southern Europe. This structure induces an anomalous meridional flow regime in eastern Siberia with cold (warm) temperature advection from the northeast (southwest) in years of high (low) ice duration and thickness. Analysis of the lower-tropospheric heat budget during years of extreme early and late ice onset indicates that horizontal temperature advection is largely responsible for the observed temperature anomalies. These circulation anomalies are associated with certain recognized patterns of Northern Hemisphere climate variability, notably the Scandinavian and Arctic Oscillation patterns. Significant correlations also occur between Lake Baikal ice cover and the Pacific–North American pattern in the previous winter. The component of variability in Lake Baikal ice cover unrelated to these modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability is associated with the position and intensity of the Siberian high.
 
biodivcanada.ca - Ice Across Biomes

ICE ACROSS BIOMES
Lake and river ice
Greater variability from year to year, as well as overall trends toward shorter duration of lake and river ice, are closely linked to increasing spring and fall air temperatures.41-43 Ice is an important part of aquatic habitat and changes in ice cover alter a range of conditions, including length of the growing season for algae, water temperature, and levels of sediment and dissolved oxygen.44 Ice conditions also affect land animals by controlling access to the shoreline and to routes across lakes and rivers.45
 

Forum List

Back
Top