Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Old Rocks]

http://masgc.org/climate/cop/Documents/SeaLevelChange.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of National Park Units to Sea-Level Rise

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science, done by real scientists. So show me where anyone here is stating that the sea levels are not rising. You are treating this the same as you treat the temperature. Every time we hit new average highs, anytime the temperature dips below that high, you scream "it's cooling", ignoring that the new 'cooler temperature' exceeds the old high temperature. Same with sea level.

The Moving Shoreline : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[gslack]

So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..

So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time?

I see you're completely clueless, slackjawed, as usual. The funny thing about that is the way you project your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. You really are retarded enough, it seems, to imagine that everyone, including the PhD scientists who study this stuff as a career, is as clueless and confused as you are. Your attitude seems to be that if you can't figure it out, then it must be bullshyt. LOL. All of your conjectures about "well, if this does that, then wouldn't this other thing have to happen" are just nonsense pseudo-logic based on your own ignorance of science and how things work and your general stupidity. You continue to spew BS even when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Just another case of bullshit over substance...

That's what you're all about, slackjawedidiot, and you're the master of it, as your every post proves.

Look crybaby don't get mad at me because they treat you like an idiot and you lap it up like a moron..

Scientists : The ice may appear to be growing but thats just an illusion, in reality its getting thinner but longer and covering more area linearly...

TrollingBlunder : I knew that.. Yeah I did and everyone else is too much of a dummy dumb head to get it...

Scientists : Yes retard; I mean smart guy you understand science. Please continue to support us we will not do you wrong this time.. After all we are far superior to you and everyone else, its best to do as we say and not think too much..

Trollingblunder : Yeah thinking BAD!!!!



Ya know the logical part of my post that you cut out and ignored? Its still there and you couldn't even bother to think on it, you just basically told me how dumb I was for questioning what you tell me...

Could you be any MORE of a sheep?

 

[gslack]

coastal vulnerability assessment of national park units to sea-level rise

spam spam spam!!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..

So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time?

I see you're completely clueless, slackjawed, as usual. The funny thing about that is the way you project your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. You really are retarded enough, it seems, to imagine that everyone, including the PhD scientists who study this stuff as a career, is as clueless and confused as you are. Your attitude seems to be that if you can't figure it out, then it must be bullshyt. LOL. All of your conjectures about "well, if this does that, then wouldn't this other thing have to happen" are just nonsense pseudo-logic based on your own ignorance of science and how things work and your general stupidity. You continue to spew BS even when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Just another case of bullshit over substance...

That's what you're all about, slackjawedidiot, and you're the master of it, as your every post proves.

Look crybaby don't get mad at me because they treat you like an idiot and you lap it up like a moron..

Oh, slackjawed, I'm not "mad" at you......'pity', 'amusement' and 'impatience with fools' would about sum it up, I think. You are usually good for a laugh on a slow day.

Scientists : The ice may appear to be growing but thats just an illusion, in reality its getting thinner but longer and covering more area linearly...

TrollingBlunder : I knew that.. Yeah I did and everyone else is too much of a dummy dumb head to get it...

Scientists : Yes retard; I mean smart guy you understand science. Please continue to support us we will not do you wrong this time.. After all we are far superior to you and everyone else, its best to do as we say and not think too much..

Trollingblunder : Yeah thinking BAD!!!!

Oh my....you've reached the point of making up conversations between two of the idiot voices in your head and imagining that it means something. Are you off your meds again? Ask the nice nursie in your ward for some more - quick.

Ya know the logical part of my post that you cut out and ignored? Its still there and you couldn't even bother to think on it, you just basically told me how dumb I was for questioning what you tell me...

Actually you're apparently just dumb enough to imagine that any part of your previous post was "logical". I was trying to point out to you that it was all so retarded as to be completely meaningless. Just like you, slackjawedidiot.

Could you be any MORE of a sheep?

Oh yeah, easily, like if I listened to FauxNews, Rush Limpdick and the stooges for the fossil fuel industry that brainwashed you. Fortunately for me, I trust the actual scientific data and evidence and the testimony of the world's scientific community.

 

[gslack]

I see you're completely clueless, slackjawed, as usual. The funny thing about that is the way you project your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. You really are retarded enough, it seems, to imagine that everyone, including the PhD scientists who study this stuff as a career, is as clueless and confused as you are. Your attitude seems to be that if you can't figure it out, then it must be bullshyt. LOL. All of your conjectures about "well, if this does that, then wouldn't this other thing have to happen" are just nonsense pseudo-logic based on your own ignorance of science and how things work and your general stupidity. You continue to spew BS even when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.






That's what you're all about, slackjawedidiot, and you're the master of it, as your every post proves.

Look crybaby don't get mad at me because they treat you like an idiot and you lap it up like a moron..

Oh, slackjawed, I'm not "mad" at you......'pity', 'amusement' and 'impatience with fools' would about sum it up, I think. You are usually good for a laugh on a slow day.





Oh my....you've reached the point of making up conversations between two of the idiot voices in your head and imagining that it means something. Are you off your meds again? Ask the nice nursie in your ward for some more - quick.

Ya know the logical part of my post that you cut out and ignored? Its still there and you couldn't even bother to think on it, you just basically told me how dumb I was for questioning what you tell me...

Actually you're apparently just dumb enough to imagine that any part of your previous post was "logical". I was trying to point out to you that it was all so retarded as to be completely meaningless. Just like you, slackjawedidiot.

Could you be any MORE of a sheep?

Oh yeah, easily, like if I listened to FauxNews, Rush Limpdick and the stooges for the fossil fuel industry that brainwashed you. Fortunately for me, I trust the actual scientific data and evidence and the testimony of the world's scientific community.

Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.

 

[RollingThunder]

Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.

And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado
(excerpts)

Overview of conditions

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

 

[westwall]

Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.

And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado
(excerpts)

Overview of conditions

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....

 

[RollingThunder]

Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.

And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado
(excerpts)

Overview of conditions

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....

Oh walleyed, how could you ever see "open water" when your head is jammed so far up your ass? 'Brown water' maybe, plus a few turds (or maybe those are other members of your denier cult, it's really hard to distinguish them apart).

 

[gslack]

Keep cutting up my posts so everyone can see how a eco-shill operates..

Go get another alter-ego this one is repeating himself again.. Now stomp your foot and cry some more.

And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado
(excerpts)

Overview of conditions

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

You argue your own experts moron, so why do you think anyone cares that you are a mad linking spam artist? Sir Spam-a-lot!

 

[westwall]

And more meaningless drivel from the slackjawedidiot.

Back to reality.

Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
The National Snow and Ice Data Center - Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976 - University of Colorado
(excerpts)

Overview of conditions

On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

This year's minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Note that our estimated uncertainty for extent is plus or minus 50,000 square kilometers (about 20,000 square miles). The minimum ice extent this year is very close to 2007, and indeed some other research groups place 2011 as the lowest on record. At this point, using our processing and sensor series, the 2011 minimum is a close second.

I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....

Oh walleyed, how could you ever see "open water" when your head is jammed so far up your ass? 'Brown water' maybe, plus a few turds (or maybe those are other members of your denier cult, it's really hard to distinguish them apart).

Nice picture. Where is it? Sure isn't the North Pole.

 

[RollingThunder]

I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....

Oh walleyed, how could you ever see "open water" when your head is jammed so far up your ass? 'Brown water' maybe, plus a few turds (or maybe those are other members of your denier cult, it's really hard to distinguish them apart).

Nice picture. Where is it? Sure isn't the North Pole.

It's somewhere in the depths of the Arctic Circle. It doesn't much matter just where. There are even more polynyas and areas of thin, broken ice now all across the remains of the Arctic ice cap, including the "North Pole", than there were back when your precious submarine photo was taken.

The thing is, walleyed, you just never could quite comprehend the information you've been repeatedly shown concerning Arctic 'leads' or 'polynyas'. I doubt you'll be able to understand it now either but here's the info anyway, just to let everybody else know what a clueless fool you are about this.

Leadshttp://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-ice-lead.htm
(excerpts)

One might think that with the extremely low temperatures near the North Pole, the ice must be hard, thick and smooth - making travel over the Arctic Ocean quite easy. Not so! The ocean is up to 3 miles / 4.8 km deep in some places, and currents cause constant movement and changes on the surface ice. This movement pulls sections of the ice cap apart, creating open lanes of water called "leads".

For anyone travelling across the ice, a stretch of deep open water in -40° temperatures (C or F - take your pick) is a formidable obstacle. Anyone slipping into a lead could drown, or quickly freeze to death. These channels can open suddenly and without warning, so much so that some early Arctic explorers would not sleep in sleeping bags for fear of drowning if a lead opened up while they slept.


The ICE Bridge Arctic mission - March 24th, 2010 - Following Arctic Leads
(excerpts)

The land based air flights of the ICE Bridge mission are following the tracks and dates of earlier ICE Sat flights to mirror the data for comparison, bridging the gap in information between the two satellites. We will be measuring change in both Arctic sea ice and glaciers. Looking out the window, I am amazed at the number of ‘leads’ (a term for a sliver like break in the ice that exposes ocean water) and open water for this time of year – the end of winter.

Arctic sea ice images collected by U.S. government intelligence sources


International Polar Foundation - The Last Pictures of the Arctic arc



Boundary layer over leads ( DFG - funded project, 2007 - 2010)

The physics of turbulence over Antarctic leads and polynyas and its parameterization: a joint study using observations, LES, and a micro-/mesoscale model - Principal investigators: Christof Lüpkes (AWI), Siegfried Raasch (Universität Hannover, IMUK)

In regions with large sea ice concentrations there are always open water areas called leads or polynyas depending on their shape. The length of leads varies between a few kilometres and tens of kilometres and their width ranges from several meters to kilometres.

 

[wirebender]

Nice picture. Where is it? Sure isn't the North Pole.

You wouldn't expect for thunder to see the obvious mountain made of stone there and come to the conclusion that it isn't at the North Pole would you?

You have to remember that someone can only come up with a lie that they believe is good enough to fool themselves. That is, after all, the limit of their intelligence. The lies people tell is a pretty good indication of how smart they really are. Thunder posts a picture that he believes should fool you into believing that there is open water at the North Pole. He doesn't generate the intellectual wattage required, however, to see the mountain in the picture and connect the requisite dots required to realize that the picture is obviously somewhere else. He wants to show you open water at the pole and is focused on an image of open water and completely unable to see the obvious flaw in his lie. Perhaps you might really enjoy pushing his buttons and ask him to describe which mountain chain that mountain might belong to if it was taken, as he claims, "deep" within the arctic circle. You might also point out that at least one of his rebuttal photos was taken less than 100 miles off Prudhoe Bay, just barely within the arctic circle. It is a perfect demonstration of how smart rolling thunder really isn't.

 

[RollingThunder]

I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water....

Sure isn't the North Pole.

I just found something that someone with your "North Pole" obsession (do you have a thing for Santa Claus? Or just big 'poles'?) certainly should find interesting. Arctic scientists from NOAA actually attach a webcam to the ice at the actual North Pole and record the summer melt season. Here's the pictures from this year.

NOAAPMEL's Channel - YouTube
Deployed on an ice floe at the North Pole in Summer 2011 as part of the North Pole Environmental Observatory.

C'mon now, walleyed, I dare you to watch it and still say: "I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water...."


***

 

[wirebender]

C'mon now, walleyed, I dare you to watch it and still say: "I'mmmmmmmm looking, and I STILL don't see open water...."


***

I see a puddle, where is the open water. Geez guy, the people who made the film acknowledge that the camera is still sitting on ice. They had to go prop it back up because it fell over. Maybe you have never been up there and don't quite get that puddles form on the ice but the ice is still there. Also, when you are dealing with people who are trying to promote the hoax, one must wonder whether the camera was at teh geographic north pole or at the magnetic north pole. More than a few miles separate them you know.

And more importantly, you are still left with no evidence whatsoever that man is responsible.

 

[Old Rocks]

All this silly arguement about water at the north pole is simply a diversion by the denialists. What matters is that the melt has produced a situation where ships will soon be able to ply the Arctic Ocean, Northwest and Northeast Passages at any time of the year. The thinning ice will allow this even in the depths of winter. And there is a lot of money being bet that this is the case.

http://bev.berkeley.edu/Arctic/The Arctic Ocean is melting ForeignAffairs.doc

Arctic shipping could also dramatically affect global trade patterns. In 1969, oil companies sent the S.S. Manhattan through the Northwest Passage to test whether it was a viable route for moving Arctic oil to the Eastern Seaboard. The Manhattan completed the voyage with the help of accompanying icebreakers, but oil companies soon deemed the route impractical and prohibitively expensive and opted instead for an Alaskan pipeline. But today such voyages are fast becoming economically feasible. As soon as marine insurers recalculate the risks involved in these voyages, trans-Arctic shipping will become commercially viable and begin on a large scale. In an age of just-in-time delivery, and with increasing fuel costs eating into the profits of shipping companies, reducing long-haul sailing distances by as much as 40 percent could usher in a new phase of globalization. Arctic routes would force further competition between the Panama and Suez Canals, thereby reducing current canal tolls; shipping chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca would no longer dictate global shipping patterns; and Arctic seaways would allow for greater international economic integration. When the ice recedes enough, likely within this decade, a marine highway directly over the North Pole will materialize. Such a route, which would most likely run between Iceland and Alaska's Dutch Harbor, would connect shipping megaports in the North Atlantic with those in the North Pacific and radiate outward to other ports in a hub-and-spoke system. A fast lane is now under development between the Arctic port of Murmansk, in Russia, and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill, in Canada, which is connected to the North American rail network.
In order to navigate these opening sea-lanes and transport the Arctic's oil and natural gas, the world's shipyards are already building ice-capable ships. The private sector is investing billions of dollars in a fleet of Arctic tankers. In 2005, there were 262 ice-class ships in service worldwide and 234 more on order. The oil and gas markets are driving the development of cutting-edge technology and the construction of new types of ships, such as double-acting tankers, which can steam bow first through open water and then turn around and proceed stern first to smash through ice. These new ships can sail unhindered to the Arctic's burgeoning oil and gas fields without the aid of icebreakers. Such breakthroughs are revolutionizing Arctic shipping and turning what were once commercially unviable projects into booming businesses.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fucq5BoEfEI]Boeing 787 makes maiden flight - YouTube[/ame]

Damn, those wings look pretty in flight.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOqdsirGg8o]Boeing 787 Dreamliner Landing at AirVenture Oshkosh - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmRKSv73lZg&feature=related]Boeing 787 Dreamliner Taxi and Thrust Reverser Test - YouTube[/ame]