Arctic ice thins dramatically

[saveliberty]

Oh your "science" is so good that your people have to "manipulate" the data in order to make it fit their views. You also have to use weather stations within ten feet of heat sources to help your cause. Just weak. Wrong, bad, greedy Phds.

 

[wirebender]

-warmest-2-000-years.html"]Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years[/URL][/SIZE][/B]

Still laughing at you thunder. I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40? That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic. I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder. Absolutely laughable. It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.

 

[wirebender]

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework. It might be easier, and more informative for you if you try to list some warmist predictions that have actually come to pass.

Here are some peer reviewed studies specifically covering the failure of climate models.

Google Oversæt

http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance

CO2 Science

New Paper “Validation And Forecasting Accuracy In Models Of Climate Change” By Fildes and Kourentzes | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

CO2 Science

The fact is trakar that there is abundant peer reviewed material proves without doubt that climate models for every purpose are abject failures.

 

[JMadison]

I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked. Get a life... Environmental wackos are out tonight... Beware.

Does volume increase or decrease as ice melts?

 

[konradv]

I'm in the process of building an arc at this very moment because I am certain that the extra water from the melting ice is going to raise the sea level and we'll all be fucked. Get a life... Environmental wackos are out tonight... Beware.

Does volume increase or decrease as ice melts?

Of course it decreases, but don't be fooled, that doesn't mean sea levels will lower. That would happen only if it was sea ice alone that melted. Sea ice melt is an indicator of overall melt. The ice that would raise sea levels is the ice that's presently on land, Greenland, Antarctica and mountain glaciers.

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh your "science" is so good that your people have to "manipulate" the data in order to make it fit their views. You also have to use weather stations within ten feet of heat sources to help your cause. Just weak. Wrong, bad, greedy Phds.

Those are your propaganda induced denier cult delusions but they have no connection to reality.

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years

Still laughing at you thunder. I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40? That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic. I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder. Absolutely laughable. It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..............ROTFLMLAO.......incredible.....you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's almost impossible......

You see a scientific study talking about temperatures over the last two thousand years and you assume that they used satellite data. LOLOLOL. Satellite data that only goes back a few decades. LOLOLOL. You ignore the clear statement about the data they used that is in the excerpts from the article that I quoted. LOLOLOL. You then spew some drivel about imaginary problems with the satellite data based only on some denier cultist's nutball speculations and denial of reality. LOLOLOL.....you are sooooo duped and confused and full of BS, it is just plain pathetic to watch you flailing about so mindlessly in your denial cult fantasy world.

From the two year old scientific study I cited, here's the part regarding the data they used, plus a few more excerpts:

The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there.

These natural archives indicated a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the sun.

Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in the Northern Hemisphere's summertime, when Earth is farther from the sun (the main driver of summer temperatures is the fact that the hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during these months, while it is tilted away from the sun during winter).

The team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the sun, cooled at an average rate of about .35 degrees Fahrenheit (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 caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.

"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 team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900.

"The amount of energy we're getting from the sun in the 20th century continued to go down, but the temperature went up higher than anything we've seen in the last 2,000 years," said team member Nicholas P. McKay of The University of Arizona in Tucson.

 

[RollingThunder]

...if you try to list some warmist predictions that have actually come to pass.

Sure, little retard, here you go. I'll post some more later.

According to the IPCC 2007 WGI, Chapter 8 report by Randall, et al. (2007):

1. There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales.

2. Models now being used in applications by major climate modeling groups better simulate seasonally varying patterns of precipitation, mean sea level pressure and surface air temperature than the models relied on by these same groups at the time of the IPCC Third Assessment Repport (TAR).

3. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period.

4. Some AOGCMs can now simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

5. The ability of AOGCMs to simulate extreme events, especially hot and cold spells, has improved.

6. Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models are able to simulate extreme warm temperatures, cold air outbreaks and frost days reasonably well.

7. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures and the larger degree of warming in the Arctic known as polar amplification.

8. Models account for a very large fraction of the global temperature pattern: the correlation coefficient between the simulated and observed spatial patterns of annual mean temperature is typically about 0.98 for individual models. This supports the view that major processes governing surface temperature climatology are represented with a reasonable degree of fidelity by the models.

9. The models, as a group, clearly capture the differences between marine and continental environments and the larger magnitude of the annual cycle found at higher latitudes, but there is a general tendency to underestimate the annual temperature range over eastern Siberia. In general, the largest fractional errors are found over the oceans (e.g., over much of tropical South America and off the east coasts of North America and Asia). These exceptions to the overall good agreement illustrate a general characteristic of current climate models: the largest-scale features of climate are simulated more accurately than regional- and smaller-scale features.

10. Models predict the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991

11. Simulation of extratropical cyclones has improved. Some models used for projections of tropical cyclone changes can simulate successfully the observed frequency and distribution of tropical cyclones.

12. The models capture the dominant extratropical patterns of variability including the Northern and Southern Annular Modes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Pacific-North American and Cold Ocean-Warm Land Patterns.

13. With a few exceptions, the models can simulate the observed zonal mean of the annual mean outgoing LW within 10 W/m2 (an error of around 5%) The models reproduce the relative minimum in this field near the equator where the relatively high humidity and extensive cloud cover in the tropics raises the effective height (and lowers the effective temperature) at which LW radiation emanates to space.

14. The seasonal cycle of the outgoing LW radiation pattern is also reasonably well simulated by models.

15. The models capture the large-scale zonal mean precipitation differences, suggesting that they can adequately represent these features of atmospheric circulation. Moreover, there is some evidence that models have improved over the last several years in simulating the annual cycle of the precipitation patterns.

16. Models also simulate some of the major regional characteristics of the precipitation field, including the major convergence zones and the maxima over tropical rain forests, although there is a tendency to underestimate rainfall over the Amazon.

17. Confidence has also increased in the ability of GCMs to represent upper-tropospheric humidity and its variations, both free and forced. Together, upper-tropospheric observational and modeling evidence provide strong support for a combined water vapor/lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in GCMs (approximately 1 W/m2 oC-1, corresponding to around a 50% amplification of global mean warming).

 

[Meister]

IPCC?

That is the root to the problem......it's all political with them to extract money out of the US.
I know, I know....

 

[RollingThunder]

IPCC?
That is the root to the problem......it's all political with them to extract money out of the US.

That is another of your nutjob denier cult myths and propaganda memes but once again, it has no actual connection to reality.

 

[Meister]

IPCC?
That is the root to the problem......it's all political with them to extract money out of the US.

That is another of your nutjob denier cult myths and propaganda memes but once again, it has no actual connection to reality.

uh-huh.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid, because your showing what a bias partisan hack you really are.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is NO chance for 2007 now...We may come close to 2008 and 2010 range, but we will be within the top 5. It would have to collapse like Larsen b ice sheet to catch 2007 now.

 

[RollingThunder]

To get back on topic, here some pertinent information about the data that was gathered by US and British submarines since about the mid fifties using their upward looking radar to measure the thickness of the sea ice. These older, formerly classified, military records were analyzed and compared to more recent data. The analysis shows that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has gotten about 40% thinner over about the last 50 years. Other observations and scientific studies support the conclusion that the ice has been thinning at an increasing rate during the same period that total ice extent has also been rapidly shrinking.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado:

All About Sea Ice
(excerpts)

In the 1990s, several scientific cruises took place as part of the Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX). These operations were military in nature, and most details remain classified. However, submarines participating in SCICEX collected many sea ice and ocean observations that are otherwise difficult to obtain. The most important observations in regard to sea ice were estimates of ice thickness from an upward-looking sonar. A comparison of recent data with data from submarines in the 1950s through the 1970s shows that sea ice has thinned by about 40 percent. See the sea ice section of NSIDC's State of the Cryosphere for further details on thinning sea ice. NSIDC archives and distributes data from SCICEX in the Submarine Upward Looking Sonar Ice Draft Profile Data and Statistics data set.

Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft from 1958 to 1997. Graph derived from Rothrock et al. 1999.

 

[Chris]

 

[westwall]

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework. It might be easier, and more informative for you if you try to list some warmist predictions that have actually come to pass.

Here are some peer reviewed studies specifically covering the failure of climate models.

Google Oversæt

http://www.gewex.org/images/G.Stephens_Feb2010GNews.pdf

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance

CO2 Science

New Paper “Validation And Forecasting Accuracy In Models Of Climate Change” By Fildes and Kourentzes | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

CO2 Science

The fact is trakar that there is abundant peer reviewed material proves without doubt that climate models for every purpose are abject failures.

Trakar is a olfraud clone. Facts and empirical data don't compute. If it doesn't come from a computer model then it doesn't count. Only CM's count. Of course trakar can't understand how they don't correlate with the real world but they'll figure it out some decade.

 

[westwall]

Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years

Still laughing at you thunder. I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40? That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic. I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder. Absolutely laughable. It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..............ROTFLMLAO.......incredible.....you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's almost impossible......

You see a scientific study talking about temperatures over the last two thousand years and you assume that they used satellite data. LOLOLOL. Satellite data that only goes back a few decades. LOLOLOL. You ignore the clear statement about the data they used that is in the excerpts from the article that I quoted. LOLOLOL. You then spew some drivel about imaginary problems with the satellite data based only on some denier cultist's nutball speculations and denial of reality. LOLOLOL.....you are sooooo duped and confused and full of BS, it is just plain pathetic to watch you flailing about so mindlessly in your denial cult fantasy world.

From the two year old scientific study I cited, here's the part regarding the data they used, plus a few more excerpts:

The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there.

These natural archives indicated a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the sun.

Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in the Northern Hemisphere's summertime, when Earth is farther from the sun (the main driver of summer temperatures is the fact that the hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during these months, while it is tilted away from the sun during winter).

The team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the sun, cooled at an average rate of about .35 degrees Fahrenheit (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 caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.

"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 team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900.

"The amount of energy we're getting from the sun in the 20th century continued to go down, but the temperature went up higher than anything we've seen in the last 2,000 years," said team member Nicholas P. McKay of The University of Arizona in Tucson.

Soooooo riddle me this batman......if the Arctic has never been warmer how is it that grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today? Hmmmm???? The Domesdy Book has records of 47 wineries that existed where none can today.

Seems like the real world is rising up to bite you in the ass again sunshine

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ooooh, 8-bit graphics, I'm impressed....

 

[Trakar]

I knew this was going to end bad. Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.

This is why I won't jump through those hoops.

So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!

Seriously?!

This just went from sad to pitiful.

 

[Meister]

I knew this was going to end bad. Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.

This is why I won't jump through those hoops.

So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!

Seriously?!

This just went from sad to pitiful.

I told you to follow the money, sorry the comprehension level is low on your end. Seems quite obvious to most, Trakar. Yes that is pitiful, tsk, tsk

 

[westwall]

I knew this was going to end bad. Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.

This is why I won't jump through those hoops.

So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!

Seriously?!

This just went from sad to pitiful.

What is sad is people actually listen to frauds like you. You constantly ask for links that you allready have been shown, repeatedly, just to waste peoples time. Here's a newsflash, go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. Scientists are rejecting the AGW non-falsifiable fraud all over the world. Go carry on your circle jerk with your other cultists and enjoy yourself. But please, stop wasting the time of those who truly wish to learn something.