Arctic Ice

[SSDD]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

If you want to see the sort of, and sheer number of people who accept consensus as science, look at the Milgram experiment...it is an experiment that looks at how compliant people are to authority...or the appearance of authority. It involves one test subject administering an electric shock to another test subject and shows that nearly 65% of people were willing to administer what they believed would be a fatal electric shock to another individual based on nothing more than the instructions of someone they perceived to be an authority.

Belief in consensus, when there is no actual evidence to support the consensus exhibits that sort of capitulative obedience to authority...believe because "I" say to believe...believe because "authority" says to believe...accept...OBEY.

That sort of non thinking acceptance seems to be the norm among warmers...they rant and rave about the impending disaster and when you ask for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim, they can't produce, but rave all the more that the perceived authority is correct and that we must OBEY.

 

[SSDD]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

See post #174, moron.

Tell me thunder...do you have any idea how often the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity on a very wide variety of scientific topics has been dead wrong? Do you have any idea how often, especially in relatively new fields of scientific research, the consensus has been dead wrong?...here is a clue...damned near always.

Accepting consensus when there is no actual evidence in support of their claims is being dominated by perceived authority...you would play right into such a situation thunder considering the abuse you suffered as a child which left you intimidated by and angry at anyone who disagrees with you. It gives you an opportunity to believe you are right and to be supported by people you believe are "the" authority...and allows you to internally justify your anger at those who are not in agreement with you.

Too damned bad that your upbringing has led you to being that sort of person.

 

[SSDD]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

Not only does it exist...it is bigger now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[gipper]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

If you want to see the sort of, and sheer number of people who accept consensus as science, look at the Milgram experiment...it is an experiment that looks at how compliant people are to authority...or the appearance of authority. It involves one test subject administering an electric shock to another test subject and shows that nearly 65% of people were willing to administer what they believed would be a fatal electric shock to another individual based on nothing more than the instructions of someone they perceived to be an authority.

Belief in consensus, when there is no actual evidence to support the consensus exhibits that sort of capitulative obedience to authority...believe because "I" say to believe...believe because "authority" says to believe...accept...OBEY.

That sort of non thinking acceptance seems to be the norm among warmers...they rant and rave about the impending disaster and when you ask for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim, they can't produce, but rave all the more that the perceived authority is correct and that we must OBEY.

Bingo!!!

These brainwashed obedient fools already live in Orwell's 1984 and don't know it.

 

[SSDD]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

If you want to see the sort of, and sheer number of people who accept consensus as science, look at the Milgram experiment...it is an experiment that looks at how compliant people are to authority...or the appearance of authority. It involves one test subject administering an electric shock to another test subject and shows that nearly 65% of people were willing to administer what they believed would be a fatal electric shock to another individual based on nothing more than the instructions of someone they perceived to be an authority.

Belief in consensus, when there is no actual evidence to support the consensus exhibits that sort of capitulative obedience to authority...believe because "I" say to believe...believe because "authority" says to believe...accept...OBEY.

That sort of non thinking acceptance seems to be the norm among warmers...they rant and rave about the impending disaster and when you ask for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim, they can't produce, but rave all the more that the perceived authority is correct and that we must OBEY.

Bingo!!!

These brainwashed obedient fools already live in Orwell's 1984 and don't know it.

I can only say that I thank my parents for raising me with enough backbone to tell anyone who is bullshitting me, including authority, to bite my shiny metal ass.

 

[Olde Europe]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

More importantly, we know that the "consensus" was occasionally wrong because the scientific community, being the self-correcting endeavor it is, settled for another theory as a candidate with a higher explanatory value as the new consensus. So, dismissing "consensus" obliterates scientific progress itself, and in reality undermines the troll's position, for without a shifting consensus he wouldn't know the previous consensus was "wrong", or rather, of lower explanatory value. Moreover, the fringe attacking the consensus was wrong infinitely more often than the consensus, just as the denialingdongs are wrong infinitely more often.

 

[jc456]

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.

Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

In the real world, here's a pretty good explanation of the matter....

Scientific consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.

well sorry son, no such thing as science and consensus.

 

[jc456]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

More importantly, we know that the "consensus" was occasionally wrong because the scientific community, being the self-correcting endeavor it is, settled for another theory as a candidate with a higher explanatory value as the new consensus. So, dismissing "consensus" obliterates scientific progress itself, and in reality undermines the troll's position, for without a shifting consensus he wouldn't know the previous consensus was "wrong", or rather, of lower explanatory value. Moreover, the fringe attacking the consensus was wrong infinitely more often than the consensus, just as the denialingdongs are wrong infinitely more often.

so funny, consensus must now be proven wrong to move to another and to another. How can that be consensus if it changes? That's SSDD point and Mine and others in here. consensus is nothing more than propaganda to a political position.

 

[jc456]

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

Spoken like a troll. Consensus in radiation physics is unanimous.

too funny. then why is the sun's corona hotter than the surface? Why is the atmosphere on earth cooler than the surface?

 

[Wuwei]

So lets see a single measurement of a discrete band of radiation from a source cooler than the instrument being used to detect it. Actual evidence to support what is, to date, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Consensus doesn't mean anything in science....hell damned near the entire world of science has been found dead wrong several times in the past couple of years...anyone who accepts consensus, especially in science, is doing so for reasons that are not scientific in the least.

It has been observed, measured, and tested. The cosmic microwave background at 2.7 K hit an antenna at ambient temperature and was reflected and detected by a warmer detector at 4 K. See this post and the ones that follow.

Does SSDD have a point that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer

 

[Weatherman2020]

You people are crazy! We must save the ice! Life on earth thrives on ice fields and glaciers!

 

[SSDD]

More importantly, we know that the "consensus" was occasionally wrong because the scientific community, being the self-correcting endeavor it is, settled for another theory as a candidate with a higher explanatory value as the new consensus. So, dismissing "consensus" obliterates scientific progress itself, and in reality undermines the troll's position, for without a shifting consensus he wouldn't know the previous consensus was "wrong", or rather, of lower explanatory value. Moreover, the fringe attacking the consensus was wrong infinitely more often than the consensus, just as the denialingdongs are wrong infinitely more often.

Sorry glassy eyes...historically, the scientific consensus has almost always been wrong...especially where relatively new fields of study are concerned...and of course, climate science will correct itself...eventually, but not until such time as it is depoliticized....and when its self correcting nature finally asserts itself over its current politicized status...history is going to view you in the same light as we view doctors who believed bleeding their patients was good medicine and washing their hands was a waste of time...look back through history and quake at all of the bullshit that at one time was mainstream science...and was accepted as consensus for far longer than climate science has even existed.

you people are laughable...and by the way...regarding the failed radiative greenhouse model...ie adding the incoming flux from the sun to the imaginary flux from the atmosphere to reach a total of 479wm2....here is actual evidence that the hypothesis is a failure...

 

[RollingThunder]

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.

Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

In the real world, here's a pretty good explanation of the matter....

Scientific consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

A hilariously non-responsive and totally insane rant from the denier cult anti-science cretin who moronically rejects and dismisses science, scientific research and the scientific conclusions and consensus that naturally result, based on the laws of physics and the research. There is a good reason these bamboozled dipshits are referred to as 'DENIERS', or 'reality deniers'. SSooooDDumb exemplies that reason with his totally ignorant braindead insistence that the scientific consensus is usually wrong - which is a particularly insane denier cult myth.

 

[RollingThunder]

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

You "would have thought" that nonsense because you are an ignorant denier cult nutjob, gimper, too brainwashed and full of lies and misinformation to know which end is up.

In the real world, no climate scientists have ever predicted that the "polar ice cap" would have "disappeared long ago".....that is strictly a fraudulent denier cult myth for deceiving the retards.

i know you won't be able to understand this actual science, gimper, given the fact that you have the attention span of a fruitfly and the intelligence of a brain damaged squirrel, but for the normal people reading this, here's what the actual science has been saying.....

Arctic Sea Ice Decline
WeatherUnderground
(excerpts)
In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.

Temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the 21st century. Winter temperature has increased more than summer temperature, which is a trend that is expected to continue. While some have suggested that these variations in temperature and associated sea ice melt are a natural cycle, recent research tells us that the Arctic was in a 2,000 year cooling trend before the 20th century and its influx of greenhouse gases.

Sea ice is generally moderated by sunlight—it grows in the winter and melts in the summer— More at link.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

If you want to see the sort of, and sheer number of people who accept consensus as science, look at the Milgram experiment...it is an experiment that looks at how compliant people are to authority...or the appearance of authority. It involves one test subject administering an electric shock to another test subject and shows that nearly 65% of people were willing to administer what they believed would be a fatal electric shock to another individual based on nothing more than the instructions of someone they perceived to be an authority.

Belief in consensus, when there is no actual evidence to support the consensus exhibits that sort of capitulative obedience to authority...believe because "I" say to believe...believe because "authority" says to believe...accept...OBEY.

That sort of non thinking acceptance seems to be the norm among warmers...they rant and rave about the impending disaster and when you ask for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim, they can't produce, but rave all the more that the perceived authority is correct and that we must OBEY.

Bingo!!!

These brainwashed obedient fools already live in Orwell's 1984 and don't know it.

I can only say that I thank my parents for raising me with enough backbone to tell anyone who is bullshitting me, including authority, to bite my shiny metal ass.

You tell 'em, Bender!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

You "would have thought" that nonsense because you are an ignorant denier cult nutjob, gimper, too brainwashed and full of lies and misinformation to know which end is up.

In the real world, no climate scientists have ever predicted that the "polar ice cap" would have "disappeared long ago".....that is strictly a fraudulent denier cult myth for deceiving the retards.

i know you won't be able to understand this actual science, gimper, given the fact that you have the attention span of a fruitfly and the intelligence of a brain damaged squirrel, but for the normal people reading this, here's what the actual science has been saying.....

Arctic Sea Ice Decline
WeatherUnderground
(excerpts)
In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.

Temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the 21st century. Winter temperature has increased more than summer temperature, which is a trend that is expected to continue. While some have suggested that these variations in temperature and associated sea ice melt are a natural cycle, recent research tells us that the Arctic was in a 2,000 year cooling trend before the 20th century and its influx of greenhouse gases.

Sea ice is generally moderated by sunlight—it grows in the winter and melts in the summer—but there are other factors at play in the decline of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Warm ocean currents travel north from the equator and usher in warmer and warmer water, making sea ice growth difficult. Weather patterns over the high mid-latitudes and the Arctic can also affect sea ice growth. Under normal climate conditions, cold air is confined to the Arctic by the polar vortex winds, which circle counter-clockwise around the North Pole. As sea ice coverage decreases, the Arctic warms, high pressure builds, and the polar vortex weakens, sending cold air is spilling southward into the mid-latitudes, bringing record cold and fierce snowstorms. At the same time, warm air will flowing into the Arctic to replace the cold air spilling south, which drives more sea ice loss. This reversal could be partially driven by sea ice loss, and so is expected to surface more often in the coming years.

The primary role that sea ice plays in global climate its ability to efficiently reflect the Sun's radiation. This property is called "albedo," the measure of the reflecting power of a surface. The albedo of snow-covered sea ice is 0.90, meaning it reflects 90% of the Sun's radiation. Just like wearing a white shirt will keep you cool when you're out in the Sun, the sea ice covering the Arctic keeps the thermostat low. The ocean surface, however, is almost black, and it only reflects 10%, meaning it absorbs 90%. After something absorbs sunlight, it emits heat. Less sea ice and more ocean surface will lead to a warmer Arctic, and a warmer climate.

Satellite data show that since the late 1970s, September Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 12% per decade. What's especially alarming is the decrease in multi-year ice. Sea ice is classified by age, usually as "new ice" or "multi-year" ice (meaning it survived many summer melting seasons). While new ice is very shallow, multi-year ice can grow to be quite thick, typically between 6 and 12 feet, and is very stable. A remarkable study was published in 2007 which measured the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic. In 1987, 57% of the observed ice pack was at least 5 years old, and around 25% of it was at least 9 years old. When they surveyed the Arctic again in 2007, only 7% of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and the ice that was at least 9 years old had all but vanished. Likewise, sea ice thickness and volume have decreased markedly since the beginning of the satellite era.

Recent years have set a number of sea ice records in the Arctic. The summer of 2007 saw a "perfect storm" of weather conditions favorable for ice loss. Unusually strong high pressure over the Arctic led to clear skies and plenty of sunshine. The polar vortex weakened, injecting large amounts of warm air into the Arctic. Sea ice loss doubled to 39% in 2007, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. In one year, as much ice was lost as in the previous 28 years combined. In 2011, the University of Bremen reported that sea ice had reached a new all-time low on September 8th, and was 27,000 square kilometers below the previous record set in 2007.

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic in 2012 shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, 2012, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The record minimum extent of 3.41 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000.

These recent low sea ice records have provided new opportunities for the shipping industry, opening both the Northeast and the Northwest Passages in the Arctic Ocean. The Northeast Passage is a shipping route that runs along the northern Russian coast and to the Bering Strait, and is sometimes called the "Northern Sea Route." On the other side of the Arctic Ocean, the Northwest Passage runs along the North American coast through waterways in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. These passages have been elusive since the early 1900s, although climate change has recently freed up both of the typically ice-choked routes. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005, and the Northwest Passage in 2007. For four years in a row, the Northwest Passage was open for ice-free sailing. It now appears that the opening of one or both of these northern passages is the new norm, and business interests are taking note—commercial shipping in the Arctic is on the increase, and there is increasing interest in oil drilling. The great polar explorers of past centuries would be astounded at how the Arctic has changed in the 21st century.

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?

We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) show that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 -3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

A Manmade Problem

Increased water temperatures and air temperatures due to human-caused global warming are the dominant reasons for the record melting of the Arctic sea ice. A July 2012 study by Day et al. found that the most influential of the possible natural influences on sea ice loss was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO has two phases, negative (cold) and positive (warm), which impact Arctic sea ice. The negative phase tends to create sea surface temperatures in the far north Atlantic that are colder than average. In this study, the AMO only accounted for 5% - 31% of the observed September sea ice decline since 1979. The scientists concluded that given the lack of evidence that natural forces were controlling sea ice fluctuations, the majority of sea ice decline we've seen during the 1953 - 2010 period was due to human causes.

Scientists use numerical models to predict how fast Arctic sea ice is expected to melt in coming decades. Until recently, these climate models have done a poor job predicting the recent record loss of Arctic sea ice. None of the models used in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have foreseen the recent, remarkable sea ice loss. This is likely because the models have a hard time understanding the transport of heat within the ocean itself, which some argue causes over 50% of Arctic sea ice loss. The NOAA GFDL model paints a similar picture as that of the IPCC models: an ice-free Arctic summer by 2100. However, these forecasts are too conservative, and it's looking more and more like the Arctic will be ice-free in the next few decades.

Does 2012 mark a fundamental change in Arctic ice loss? Possibly. The previous record low extent in 2007 was spurred by not just warming, but also a very unfavorable pattern of storms which aided in breaking up the sea ice, allowing it to melt more and faster. This year, though we did see two strong storms in the Arctic, they weren't like what we saw in 2007. It's arguable that 2012's all-time minimum was due more to the warming Arctic than the minimum we saw in 2007. Mark Serreze, the Director the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said about this year's sea ice minimum, "Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow." It's hard to say exactly when we'll see an ice-free summer Arctic, since there is still some natural variability in the process. A study by Day et al. found that 5 to 31% of the sea ice variability could be due to natural causes. However, sea ice minimum has been declining sharply over the past 30 years, and is far exceeding the worst worst-case scenario predicted by the 2007 IPCC report. Annual minimum sea ice extent is decreasing at a rate of 12% per year. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20-30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free within four years. A recent study by Stroeve et al. using updated IPCC models finds that they are more able to predict the current rate of melting. These updated models suggest that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility."

Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system. The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it. Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 - 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events. Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.

The impacts of an ice-free Arctic are far-reaching, and could be a trigger for abrupt, cataclysmic climate change in the future. Although it is difficult to see exactly how sea ice decline will impact the local and global environment, basic understanding of the Arctic as well as recent observations give us a good idea of how things might change.

The Cold, Hard Facts

Arctic sea ice has been melting at break-neck speeds in the past few decades, driven by warming air temperature, warming ocean water temperature, and new, extreme weather patterns, all of which are caused by or accelerated by man-made climate change. Unfortunately, melting sea ice is a slippery slope—once it starts, it's hard to reverse, and even under normal climate conditions would take centuries to reestablish. The lack of bright white ice on the dark ocean surface is leading to a temperature increase that likely extends beyond the borders of the Arctic, and a breakdown of the polar vortex, which is so critical in maintaining a cold, ice-conducive atmosphere at the pole. Models suggest sea ice will disappear by 2100, but most Arctic sea ice experts are calling for an summertime ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Arctic will be ice free by 2005
Arctic will be ice free by 2010
Arctic will be ice free by 2015
Arctic will be ice free by 2030

We're cereal this thyme

 

[RollingThunder]

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

You "would have thought" that nonsense because you are an ignorant denier cult nutjob, gimper, too brainwashed and full of lies and misinformation to know which end is up.

In the real world, no climate scientists have ever predicted that the "polar ice cap" would have "disappeared long ago".....that is strictly a fraudulent denier cult myth for deceiving the retards.

i know you won't be able to understand this actual science, gimper, given the fact that you have the attention span of a fruitfly and the intelligence of a brain damaged squirrel, but for the normal people reading this, here's what the actual science has been saying.....

Arctic Sea Ice Decline
WeatherUnderground
(excerpts)
In the Arctic, temperature has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and could increase by another 8°C (14°F) by the end of this century. The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. The impacts of dwindling ice cover in the Arctic are far-reaching, from species endangerment to enhanced global warming, to the weakening or shut-down of global ocean circulation.

Temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the 21st century. Winter temperature has increased more than summer temperature, which is a trend that is expected to continue. While some have suggested that these variations in temperature and associated sea ice melt are a natural cycle, recent research tells us that the Arctic was in a 2,000 year cooling trend before the 20th century and its influx of greenhouse gases.

Sea ice is generally moderated by sunlight—it grows in the winter and melts in the summer—but there are other factors at play in the decline of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Warm ocean currents travel north from the equator and usher in warmer and warmer water, making sea ice growth difficult. Weather patterns over the high mid-latitudes and the Arctic can also affect sea ice growth. Under normal climate conditions, cold air is confined to the Arctic by the polar vortex winds, which circle counter-clockwise around the North Pole. As sea ice coverage decreases, the Arctic warms, high pressure builds, and the polar vortex weakens, sending cold air is spilling southward into the mid-latitudes, bringing record cold and fierce snowstorms. At the same time, warm air will flowing into the Arctic to replace the cold air spilling south, which drives more sea ice loss. This reversal could be partially driven by sea ice loss, and so is expected to surface more often in the coming years.

The primary role that sea ice plays in global climate its ability to efficiently reflect the Sun's radiation. This property is called "albedo," the measure of the reflecting power of a surface. The albedo of snow-covered sea ice is 0.90, meaning it reflects 90% of the Sun's radiation. Just like wearing a white shirt will keep you cool when you're out in the Sun, the sea ice covering the Arctic keeps the thermostat low. The ocean surface, however, is almost black, and it only reflects 10%, meaning it absorbs 90%. After something absorbs sunlight, it emits heat. Less sea ice and more ocean surface will lead to a warmer Arctic, and a warmer climate.

Satellite data show that since the late 1970s, September Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 12% per decade. What's especially alarming is the decrease in multi-year ice. Sea ice is classified by age, usually as "new ice" or "multi-year" ice (meaning it survived many summer melting seasons). While new ice is very shallow, multi-year ice can grow to be quite thick, typically between 6 and 12 feet, and is very stable. A remarkable study was published in 2007 which measured the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic. In 1987, 57% of the observed ice pack was at least 5 years old, and around 25% of it was at least 9 years old. When they surveyed the Arctic again in 2007, only 7% of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and the ice that was at least 9 years old had all but vanished. Likewise, sea ice thickness and volume have decreased markedly since the beginning of the satellite era.

Recent years have set a number of sea ice records in the Arctic. The summer of 2007 saw a "perfect storm" of weather conditions favorable for ice loss. Unusually strong high pressure over the Arctic led to clear skies and plenty of sunshine. The polar vortex weakened, injecting large amounts of warm air into the Arctic. Sea ice loss doubled to 39% in 2007, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. In one year, as much ice was lost as in the previous 28 years combined. In 2011, the University of Bremen reported that sea ice had reached a new all-time low on September 8th, and was 27,000 square kilometers below the previous record set in 2007.

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic in 2012 shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, 2012, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The record minimum extent of 3.41 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000.

These recent low sea ice records have provided new opportunities for the shipping industry, opening both the Northeast and the Northwest Passages in the Arctic Ocean. The Northeast Passage is a shipping route that runs along the northern Russian coast and to the Bering Strait, and is sometimes called the "Northern Sea Route." On the other side of the Arctic Ocean, the Northwest Passage runs along the North American coast through waterways in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. These passages have been elusive since the early 1900s, although climate change has recently freed up both of the typically ice-choked routes. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005, and the Northwest Passage in 2007. For four years in a row, the Northwest Passage was open for ice-free sailing. It now appears that the opening of one or both of these northern passages is the new norm, and business interests are taking note—commercial shipping in the Arctic is on the increase, and there is increasing interest in oil drilling. The great polar explorers of past centuries would be astounded at how the Arctic has changed in the 21st century.

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?

We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) show that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 -3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

A Manmade Problem

Increased water temperatures and air temperatures due to human-caused global warming are the dominant reasons for the record melting of the Arctic sea ice. A July 2012 study by Day et al. found that the most influential of the possible natural influences on sea ice loss was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO has two phases, negative (cold) and positive (warm), which impact Arctic sea ice. The negative phase tends to create sea surface temperatures in the far north Atlantic that are colder than average. In this study, the AMO only accounted for 5% - 31% of the observed September sea ice decline since 1979. The scientists concluded that given the lack of evidence that natural forces were controlling sea ice fluctuations, the majority of sea ice decline we've seen during the 1953 - 2010 period was due to human causes.

Scientists use numerical models to predict how fast Arctic sea ice is expected to melt in coming decades. Until recently, these climate models have done a poor job predicting the recent record loss of Arctic sea ice. None of the models used in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have foreseen the recent, remarkable sea ice loss. This is likely because the models have a hard time understanding the transport of heat within the ocean itself, which some argue causes over 50% of Arctic sea ice loss. The NOAA GFDL model paints a similar picture as that of the IPCC models: an ice-free Arctic summer by 2100. However, these forecasts are too conservative, and it's looking more and more like the Arctic will be ice-free in the next few decades.

Does 2012 mark a fundamental change in Arctic ice loss? Possibly. The previous record low extent in 2007 was spurred by not just warming, but also a very unfavorable pattern of storms which aided in breaking up the sea ice, allowing it to melt more and faster. This year, though we did see two strong storms in the Arctic, they weren't like what we saw in 2007. It's arguable that 2012's all-time minimum was due more to the warming Arctic than the minimum we saw in 2007. Mark Serreze, the Director the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said about this year's sea ice minimum, "Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow." It's hard to say exactly when we'll see an ice-free summer Arctic, since there is still some natural variability in the process. A study by Day et al. found that 5 to 31% of the sea ice variability could be due to natural causes. However, sea ice minimum has been declining sharply over the past 30 years, and is far exceeding the worst worst-case scenario predicted by the 2007 IPCC report. Annual minimum sea ice extent is decreasing at a rate of 12% per year. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20-30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free within four years. A recent study by Stroeve et al. using updated IPCC models finds that they are more able to predict the current rate of melting. These updated models suggest that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility."

Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system. The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it. Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 - 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events. Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.

The impacts of an ice-free Arctic are far-reaching, and could be a trigger for abrupt, cataclysmic climate change in the future. Although it is difficult to see exactly how sea ice decline will impact the local and global environment, basic understanding of the Arctic as well as recent observations give us a good idea of how things might change.

The Cold, Hard Facts

Arctic sea ice has been melting at break-neck speeds in the past few decades, driven by warming air temperature, warming ocean water temperature, and new, extreme weather patterns, all of which are caused by or accelerated by man-made climate change. Unfortunately, melting sea ice is a slippery slope—once it starts, it's hard to reverse, and even under normal climate conditions would take centuries to reestablish. The lack of bright white ice on the dark ocean surface is leading to a temperature increase that likely extends beyond the borders of the Arctic, and a breakdown of the polar vortex, which is so critical in maintaining a cold, ice-conducive atmosphere at the pole. Models suggest sea ice will disappear by 2100, but most Arctic sea ice experts are calling for an summertime ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Arctic will be ice free by 2005
Arctic will be ice free by 2010
Arctic will be ice free by 2015
Arctic will be ice free by 2030

We're cereal this thyme

And the CrazyFruitcake pointlessly spews some more exceptionally crazy gibberish based on his delusional denier cult myths that have no connection to reality. As usual for this particular troll.

In the real world, the Arctic has been rapidly melting for some time and ice extententvand volume has diminished enormously from the levels that had prevailed for many thousands of years.

Scientists had thought, several decades ago, that it would probably take until around 2100 for the Arctic Ocean to be completely ice free in the summertime.....but the speed at which the ice is actually disappearing has startled Arctic scientists, many of whom now think that it may be ice free in the summer within a decade or two.

Right now in the Arctic....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.
(source - National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

And, BTW, the graph above that shows a decline of only 3% per decade, that only is referring to the extent in February, in the deepest winter, close to the maximum extent for the year.

At the end of summer, when the Arctic sea ice is near its minimum, the rate of decline per decade is much higher, over 10% per decade.

Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 10.4 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

[SSDD]

And yet, thunder, the arctic is is at a greater extent now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Robust substantiation for the trends documented in this new Arctic sea ice record comes from a 2005 paper by Lassen and Thejll entitled “Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea- Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000.” Shown below is an annotated graph from the paper revealing Iceland’s sea ice cover during the last millennium. These scientists also link sea ice variations to solar activity, namely solar cycle length. Notice the direct correspondence between the Arctic trends as a whole (from Stein et al., 2017) and the trends for Iceland.

 

[Old Rocks]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

You mean that you are still playing the ignoramous? The Northwest Passage was predicted to open up in the latter half of this century. It opened in 2007, and last year, a very large luxury cruise liner transited the Passage. That you have to tell lies about what was predicted, and what has actually occurred is an indication of your basic dishonesty.

 

[SSDD]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!

You mean that you are still playing the ignoramous? The Northwest Passage was predicted to open up in the latter half of this century. It opened in 2007, and last year, a very large luxury cruise liner transited the Passage. That you have to tell lies about what was predicted, and what has actually occurred is an indication of your basic dishonesty.

Still spewing the same old lies...I asked you before and you ran away...and since it is fun to see you run away, I will ask you again...Looking at this gold standard temperature reconstruction made from ice cores taken above the arctic circle, tell me rocks...what do you think the arctic ice has looked like for most of the past 10,000 years?

This is what it looked like according to someone who actually paid attention in class..