Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[Vidi]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?

Dumbass. Active sunspot season, Aurora will be more common.

 

[saveliberty]

I see the dimwits have totally missed the Sun and water vapor as primary factors in ice melts. Faking weather data in support of bad climate theories is clearly understood and rejected people.

 

[Big Fitz]

I see the dimwits have totally missed the Sun and water vapor as primary factors in ice melts. Faking weather data in support of bad climate theories is clearly understood and rejected people.

Wait... melting ice can increase water vapor???? NO WAYYYYY!!!!!

 

[saveliberty]

Way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?

Dumbass. Active sunspot season, Aurora will be more common.

Do you have graphs and charts?

 

[Big Fitz]

Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?

Dumbass. Active sunspot season, Aurora will be more common.

Do you have graphs and charts?

that's right, without links and computer models, it won't happen. After all, reality obeys US.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Aurora Forecast | Geophysical Institute

 

[westwall]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Ice extent is what it turns out to be. If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it. Why is that not happening? You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims. Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?

 

[Vidi]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?

Dumbass. Active sunspot season, Aurora will be more common.

Actually I was simply quoting the article from the original post. So all of you who jumped on me have proven

1) You dont agree with the original post

2) You didnt bother to read his link

3) Your mind is made up before any evidence is presented

4) Your opinion is irrelevant

Happy Tuesday!

 

[Vidi]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Ice extent is what it turns out to be. If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it. Why is that not happening? You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims. Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?

I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.

 

[westwall]

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.

Ice extent is what it turns out to be. If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it. Why is that not happening? You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims. Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?

I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.

I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing. All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that? Not tell the truth I mean.

 

[Vidi]

Ice extent is what it turns out to be. If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it. Why is that not happening? You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims. Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?

I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.

I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing. All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that? Not tell the truth I mean.

Well, the same way you do it it I suppose. The article posted to begin this thread clearly states that the ice is thin and will most likely melt again, which is what I posted and you took issue with.

Essentially, I chose to read the entire article then posted the part of the OPs link that debunks the OPs point.

After all, if someone is going to link an article to back up their point, it should actually back up their point, dont you think?

 

[code1211]

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

These people do not read actual science articles. They only repeat what an obese junkie on the radio says the articles stated. I have repeatedly posted paragraphs from articles they stated were proof that AGW was wrong, where the author had stated exactly the opposite. Walleyes is particularly egrerious in doing this.

They have used this article this way before, and others, as well as I, have published what the article itself said, just as you did. But in another month, you will see them repeating exactly the same thing.

Ahhhh...

Brothers in propaganda.

Unlike the AGW ass clowns that take the cherry picked points of favorable data and create tortured conclusions that are blasted to an unknowing populace, the Scientists at CERN present actual science and refrain from propaganda driven statements of agenda driven drivel.

You don't see this as science because it's not agenda driven propaganda and that is what you have come to believe science to be.

This is sad for you.

What the CERN research actually said:

CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Clouds - Global Warming Next?

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."


The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.

 

[code1211]

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

You asked for an alternate and now you have one.

Thjere are also about a dozen other factors from cloud cover to ocean currents that impact climate and they all seem to reduce CO2 to a weak sister of any forcing at all.

By the standard your source used to undermine the CERN work applies just as well to the CO2 boogie man. While CO2 rises with constancy, the temperature rises, falls, stalls and in general ignores the impact that CO2 should be having.

The question was posed and answered. How do you feel about CERN as the source of your any other cause to explain the warming?

Total BS, Code. In the long term, there are only two factors that matter. The amount of energy recieved from the sun, and the amount the Earth retains. One we cannot change, and one we have changed. A 40% increase in CO2, 150+% in CH4, and a number of industrial gases that have no natural analog, and are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For the last ten years the Total Solar Irradiance has declined slightly. But the warming has continued, and the cryosphere has shrunk significantly.

In real life observations, there is no link at all between cosmic rays and warming.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

In one post you talk about the Maunder Minimum and then immediately say that the energy received from the Sun cannot change.

Again, warming is not the issue. The cause is the issue. You need to prove that CO2 is the cause of warming. Right now, the warming has stalled for about the same amount of time as you say the Sun's radiation has decreased.

CO2's getting pushed around again, huh.

 

[code1211]

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

If the effects are poorly understood, it sounds as if this is a perfect alternative to the CO2 theory since this is also poorly understood.

If it was well understood, then the predictions would be accurate. They are not.





So, you're an astro physicist. Tell us what this part of the abstract means.

"Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold."

1) It means exactly what it says.

2) It means CLOSE to the following: the role of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds is poorly understand, and here we present the first results from an experiment designed to investigate this. The addition of ammonia causes an increase in the formation of cloud seeds, and.....


Its cut off at the end because you picked a weird place to cut the abstract.

If this poorly understood, then it is the prefect alternative theory to CO2 causing warming which is also poorly understood.

If the effects of CO2 were understood completely or even well, then the predictions would be accurate. They are not.

 

[code1211]

I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.

I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing. All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that? Not tell the truth I mean.

Well, the same way you do it it I suppose. The article posted to begin this thread clearly states that the ice is thin and will most likely melt again, which is what I posted and you took issue with.

Essentially, I chose to read the entire article then posted the part of the OPs link that debunks the OPs point.

After all, if someone is going to link an article to back up their point, it should actually back up their point, dont you think?

The AGW accepted line of thinking is that the warming will cause Arctic ice Extent to decrease every year and to cause a complete disappearance of the Polar Ice Cap by about 2050.

However, the annual decrease is turning out to be an annual increase.

In the topsy turvy world of AGW dogmatic mantra, anything, even direct proof to the opposite, is support of the case. It's a wonderful way to argue.

 

[Vidi]

I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing. All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that? Not tell the truth I mean.

Well, the same way you do it it I suppose. The article posted to begin this thread clearly states that the ice is thin and will most likely melt again, which is what I posted and you took issue with.

Essentially, I chose to read the entire article then posted the part of the OPs link that debunks the OPs point.

After all, if someone is going to link an article to back up their point, it should actually back up their point, dont you think?

The AGW accepted line of thinking is that the warming will cause Arctic ice Extent to decrease every year and to cause a complete disappearance of the Polar Ice Cap by about 2050.

However, the annual decrease is turning out to be an annual increase.

In the topsy turvy world of AGW dogmatic mantra, anything, even direct proof to the opposite, is support of the case. It's a wonderful way to argue.

Im not commenting if global climate change is true or not. Im commenting on the fact the OP posted a link and a title nothing else. And the link does not support the title he chose.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ice extent is what it turns out to be. If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it. Why is that not happening? You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims. Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?

I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.

I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing. All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that? Not tell the truth I mean.

Really? Extant increasing and getting thicker, also? Perhaps you can post some links to real scientists that are stating that?

Because here is what the real scientists are stating from actual observations.

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

Note that the high points were running 14 to 15 million square kilometers from 1979 to 1989. From 1990 to 2004, they were running mid 13 to mid 14 million square kilometers for a high. Since 2005, the high points have never reached 14 million square kilometers.

The lows were running mid 4 to mid 5 million square kilometers from 1979 to 1997. From 1998 to 2006 they ran mostly just over 4 million square kilometers, since then, they have mostly been right at 3 million square kilometers for a low. Just how the hell do you get increasing in extant out of that, Walleyes?

PIOMAS, from the University of Washington has been keeping track of ice volume.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?

Now just how do you fit that in with your claim of increasing ice volume?