Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Si modo]

And, of course, no one at the National Academy of Sciences is capable of doing that, correct?

ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts. To make this possible, the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels.

BULLSHIT!!!!!

"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring,

no shit climate is always changing tool....

is caused largely by human activities,

BUlLSHIT!!! Prove it.....


and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies."

Really? prove that too then.....

You are a tool and a proven and documented lar and shameless propagandist.... So anything you claim is suspect....

Here's the thing. Nothing in science is proven, rather falsifiable theories/hypotheses which are supported with repeatable experiments, physical data, and physical observations stands until falsified.

And, those theories/hypotheses are reviewed by scienctists and only scientists. When reviewed by politicians also, they lose any credibility as scientific theories/hypotheses.

Simple and all part of the logic of scientific discovery.

 

[Old Rocks]

What a line of bullshit! Because a politician looks at a scientific theory, and states "I see consequences that need to be addressed", that scientific theory is invalidated?

Damn, you are waxing really, really stupid to support you misguieded ideological beliefs. Diving off into the denial of reality.

 

[Si modo]

What a line of bullshit! Because a politician looks at a scientific theory, and states "I see consequences that need to be addressed", that scientific theory is invalidated?

Damn, you are waxing really, really stupid to support you misguieded ideological beliefs. Diving off into the denial of reality.

Are you dense or what?

One more time: The theory/hypothesis MUST be both falsifiable AND supported by physical observations and experiments. Peer-review rules on the soundness of methods and logic of the science. Politicians do not, except for you.

It's humorous that you call the logic of scientific discovery bullshit. This is exactly what I mean by your inability to get out of the starting gate in these discussions. You call the most simple basics bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, old gal, it has been nice talking to you, but I have things that I must do.

 

[gslack]

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

19/05/2010 5:02 PM

Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.

The latest satellite data show ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record - Winnipeg Free Press

LOL, I love when you guys try this tactic.... You post one extreme claim and when it is shown to be bullshit you grab the same type of claims from another media source and rinse, then repeat like good little tools....

lets just fix the claims in the OP and the headline in the article by actually reading the article shall we....

The headline reads; "Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record"

But after reading Your article we see it says these all too telling things.... THe first line..

"Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought."

Funny but I was under the assumption "on track" and "suggesting" would mean its a possibility not a fact.... hmm thats not what the headline said now is it.... Bullshit number 1...

next your article said....

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo."

Ah okay so its possible and not a fact or anything so direct and clear as the headline would lead us to believe.... Bullshit number 2....

Moving on your article said...

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Oh really? so how did we get 10% of the 30% we lost since 1979 in one season? We got back 10% in 2008 and some more back 2009 according to the other thread you started on this.... hmm funny..... Bullshit number 3....

Once again in your article....

"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average."

What????? THey just tried to claim we couldn't get the ice back??? WTF????? BUllshit number 4....

And the most telling thing in the entire article......

"Will (thawing) this year be particularly fast?" asked Serreze. "We don't know. We really don't know."

Yeah....Says it all doesn't it.... They just don't know, seems odd how sure the headline made them sound.... yeah BULLSHIT NUMBER 5.........

I could go on and show every bit of bullshit in it but I think those things right there are more than sufficient to show this is a PR snowjob.....

Nice work guys, you are a big help in outting this AGW fraud....

My response to the OP writers claims... I think it best if the warmer trolls are going to try this bringing up old threads to get the last word and hide the truth tactic, I should make sure the truth in the thread is reposted as well.

 

[westwall]

You have no understanding of this subject at all so these figures you pull out of your ass are inevitably just raw bullshit. You're just another kooky cultist trying to deny the reality that the rest of the world recognizes. You have no scientific backing for your position because all of your arguments are politically based.

Here's a dose of reality: The state of the science does not allow for any reasonable conclusion about the magnitude of impact and significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature and ancillary effects.

Interesting point that you have there. We have consistantly underestimated the impact in the last two decades. The melt of the North Polar Cap, the wasting of the Alpine Glaciers, and the melting observed in the Greenland and Anartic Ice Caps all exceed what were thought to be alarmist projections only ten years ago.

The outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates have been a very unpleasant surprise, as has the extent of the production of CO2 and CH4 by the permafrost.

A23A

You are correct. The state of the science is such that we still are underestimating the speed and magnitude of the effects of AGW.

What a lying sack of horse poo you are old fraud. The AGW cultists have CONSISTENTLY OVERESTIMATED ALL EFFECTS..which is why they have a hit rate of about .010 over the last thirty years. Go back to the first Earth Day and see the predictions they made then and compare to what is happening now.....they didn't get a single thing correct. Great job!

 

[westwall]

Well, old gal, it has been nice talking to you, but I have things that I must do.

Good! Please, please, please don't come back. We need intelligent conversations here not Monty Python argument clinic nonsense from the likes of you.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand, the report from NSIDC looks pretty darn normal for the Arctic and I'm not seeing much alarm there:

During April, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a steady pace, remaining just below the 1979 to 2000 average. Ice extent for April 2010 was the largest for that month in the past decade. At the same time, changing wind patterns have caused older, thicker ice to move south along Greenland’s east coast, where it will likely melt during the summer. Temperatures in the Arctic remained above average.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for April 2010 was 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001.

Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.

Figure 2. The graph above shows daily sea ice extent as of May 3, 2010. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; dashed green shows 2007; and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Conditions in context

The very late maximum ice extent, on March 31, means that the melt season started almost a month later later than normal.

As we noted in last month's post, the late growth in ice extent came largely from expansion in the southernmost Bering Sea, Barents Sea, and Sea of Okhotsk. These areas remained cool, with northeasterly and northwesterly winds, keeping the overall ice extent close to the average for the month of April.


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[RollingThunder]

Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting. Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that. Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!


Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?

LOLOLOL....so the paranoid conspiracy theory du jour on dingbat denier cult blogs is 'secret data', eh? More ice than is being reported? LOL. Jeez, you're gullible, walleyed.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent & Volume at Record Lows for the Date
Submitted by Nick Sundt on Sat, 05/29/2010 - 09:44

On 28 May, the extent of Arctic sea ice dropped to a record low for the date of 11,162,188 km2, surpassing the previous record low of 11,199,844 km2 set on 28 May 2006. Since reaching a seasonal maximum of approximately 14,407,344 km2 on 31 March, the extent of sea ice has fallen a staggering 3,245,156 km2 or 2,016,446 square miles. That is an area roughly half the size of the entire United States (including Alaska) and represents a decline of roughly 55,950 km2 per day (34,766 square miles per day). While the extent of Arctic sea ice normally declines during the "melt season" that typically begins in March and continues into September, the decline is unusually rapid for this time of year.

Meanwhile, the sea ice volume for the date is at a record low, falling 9-10,000 km3 below the average (1979-2009) values for the date. That volume, greater than that of Lakes Michigan and Huron combined (8,260 km3 or 1,980 cu mi), is the largest negative anomaly on record (i.e. for all dates since 1979).

In addition to being a very large volume in absolute terms, the volume also is large relative to the total volume of Arctic sea ice. According to a model developed by the University of Washington's Polar Science Laboratory (PSL), the average Arctic sea ice volume in late May averaged around 26,000 km3 during the 1979-2009 period. The current negative anomaly in ice volume therefore represents a loss of around one third of the average sea ice volume.

* © 2010 World Wildlife Fund

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Now what was that argument you said about biased sources there blunder. Seems to me the WWF is one of THE most biased and untruthful organizations out there

Yes, they found the WWF was getting payoffs from the polar bears to distort the science.......LOLOLOLOLOL. You are such a loon, walleyed.

I notice that you are unable to dispute the data and numbers in that article on sea ice extents and volumes. And I mean 'dispute' by offering scientific evidence to the contrary. You can't because there isn't any. All you've got is your nutso denier cult dogmas and myths.

..seems to me if I remember correctly some of their claims got into a certain IPCC report and were proven to be complete BS. GREAT SOURCE DOOD!

I know that you anti-science denier cultists love to denigrate all real science and reputable scientists but that is because your whole propaganda effort depends on confusing people about the reality of the scientific evidence and conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. In the real world the World Wildlife Fund is a well respected scientific research organization that produces a lot of sound science about the environment. A couple of things from their reports were improperly cited or referenced in the IPCC report.

One of them was a claim that the Amazon Rain Forrest is sensitive to droughts. Turns out that the claim is quite correct. The IPCC has been criticized for using the WWF as a source but that turns out to be a sort of clerical error. They were supposed to cite the original sources that the WWF report used, instead of just citing the WWF.

The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong

Union of Concerned Scientists

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: "Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

In other words, global warming may be putting the Amazon basin at risk of more frequent and severe droughts. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests' edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

"The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 -- this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: 'Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.'"

It is also worth noting that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC's deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

"Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.'"

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Foxfyre]

So RollingThunder. You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?

 

[Si modo]

I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time. I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time. I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.

They do some good stuff. But my geologist friend, physicist friend, and one who does science in a discipline I can never remember say they are far more political than scientific and sometimes border on unethical in data they use. So far as we know, they have never been known to take anything other than the leftwing position on anything. The fact that Sourcewatch and its sister organizations think UCS is just wonderful says to me that they bear watching.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOL....so the paranoid conspiracy theory du jour on dingbat denier cult blogs is 'secret data', eh? More ice than is being reported? LOL. Jeez, you're gullible, walleyed.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent & Volume at Record Lows for the Date
Submitted by Nick Sundt on Sat, 05/29/2010 - 09:44

On 28 May, the extent of Arctic sea ice dropped to a record low for the date of 11,162,188 km2, surpassing the previous record low of 11,199,844 km2 set on 28 May 2006. Since reaching a seasonal maximum of approximately 14,407,344 km2 on 31 March, the extent of sea ice has fallen a staggering 3,245,156 km2 or 2,016,446 square miles. That is an area roughly half the size of the entire United States (including Alaska) and represents a decline of roughly 55,950 km2 per day (34,766 square miles per day). While the extent of Arctic sea ice normally declines during the "melt season" that typically begins in March and continues into September, the decline is unusually rapid for this time of year.

Meanwhile, the sea ice volume for the date is at a record low, falling 9-10,000 km3 below the average (1979-2009) values for the date. That volume, greater than that of Lakes Michigan and Huron combined (8,260 km3 or 1,980 cu mi), is the largest negative anomaly on record (i.e. for all dates since 1979).

In addition to being a very large volume in absolute terms, the volume also is large relative to the total volume of Arctic sea ice. According to a model developed by the University of Washington's Polar Science Laboratory (PSL), the average Arctic sea ice volume in late May averaged around 26,000 km3 during the 1979-2009 period. The current negative anomaly in ice volume therefore represents a loss of around one third of the average sea ice volume.

* © 2010 World Wildlife Fund

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Now what was that argument you said about biased sources there blunder. Seems to me the WWF is one of THE most biased and untruthful organizations out there

Yes, they found the WWF was getting payoffs from the polar bears to distort the science.......LOLOLOLOLOL. You are such a loon, walleyed.

I notice that you are unable to dispute the data and numbers in that article on sea ice extents and volumes. And I mean 'dispute' by offering scientific evidence to the contrary. You can't because there isn't any. All you've got is your nutso denier cult dogmas and myths.

..seems to me if I remember correctly some of their claims got into a certain IPCC report and were proven to be complete BS. GREAT SOURCE DOOD!

I know that you anti-science denier cultists love to denigrate all real science and reputable scientists but that is because your whole propaganda effort depends on confusing people about the reality of the scientific evidence and conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. In the real world the World Wildlife Fund is a well respected scientific research organization that produces a lot of sound science about the environment. A couple of things from their reports were improperly cited or referenced in the IPCC report.

One of them was a claim that the Amazon Rain Forrest is sensitive to droughts. Turns out that the claim is quite correct. The IPCC has been criticized for using the WWF as a source but that turns out to be a sort of clerical error. They were supposed to cite the original sources that the WWF report used, instead of just citing the WWF.

The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong

Union of Concerned Scientists

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: "Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

In other words, global warming may be putting the Amazon basin at risk of more frequent and severe droughts. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests' edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

"The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 -- this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: 'Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.'"

It is also worth noting that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC's deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

"Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.'"

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Yeah right blunder...these clowns have their heads so far up the ass of the IPCC they can only see brown. A REAL credible source you quote ther. I don't need to counter what they say...it has been proven false by three others on this board other than me so why waste time.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yes, they found the WWF was getting payoffs from the polar bears to distort the science.......LOLOLOLOLOL. You are such a loon, walleyed.

I notice that you are unable to dispute the data and numbers in that article on sea ice extents and volumes. And I mean 'dispute' by offering scientific evidence to the contrary. You can't because there isn't any. All you've got is your nutso denier cult dogmas and myths.

..seems to me if I remember correctly some of their claims got into a certain IPCC report and were proven to be complete BS. GREAT SOURCE DOOD!

I know that you anti-science denier cultists love to denigrate all real science and reputable scientists but that is because your whole propaganda effort depends on confusing people about the reality of the scientific evidence and conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. In the real world the World Wildlife Fund is a well respected scientific research organization that produces a lot of sound science about the environment. A couple of things from their reports were improperly cited or referenced in the IPCC report.

One of them was a claim that the Amazon Rain Forrest is sensitive to droughts. Turns out that the claim is quite correct. The IPCC has been criticized for using the WWF as a source but that turns out to be a sort of clerical error. They were supposed to cite the original sources that the WWF report used, instead of just citing the WWF.

The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong

Union of Concerned Scientists

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: "Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

In other words, global warming may be putting the Amazon basin at risk of more frequent and severe droughts. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests' edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

"The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 -- this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: 'Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.'"

It is also worth noting that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC's deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

"Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.'"

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Yeah right blunder...these clowns have their heads so far up the ass of the IPCC they can only see brown. A REAL credible source you quote ther. I don't need to counter what they say...it has been proven false by three others on this board other than me so why waste time.

Your head is so far up Exxon's ass, your brain died from the oil fumes a long time ago, walleyedretard. I quote reputable scientific sources and you quote yourself. You are a joke.

None of your deluded denier cultists have been able to offer any evidence supporting your denial of reality, let alone "prove false" any of the hard science and factual research I've posted.

 

[RollingThunder]

I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time. I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMFAO...you're really funny, in a very retarded sort of way.

The UCS doesn't invite hamburger flippers like you to join, douche-bag. Nice try but you've long since revealed yourself to be an ignorant moron with no knowledge of science.

 

[RollingThunder]

So RollingThunder. You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?

Wow, you're really, really confused. I never said that. I consider the NSIDC to be an excellent source of valid information. So is the UCS, although their focus is not exclusively on the Arctic like the NSIDC. They are not in conflict with one another.

So tell me, do you see more sea ice in the Arctic now than in 1979 or just the opposite?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So RollingThunder. You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?

Wow, you're really, really confused. I never said that. I consider the NSIDC to be an excellent source of valid information. So is the UCS, although their focus is not exclusively on the Arctic like the NSIDC. They are not in conflict with one another.

So tell me, do you see more sea ice in the Arctic now than in 1979 or just the opposite?

Looks like it spread out more over the years.

Cool image. Is there something like that for the Antarctic?

 

[RollingThunder]

So RollingThunder. You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?

Wow, you're really, really confused. I never said that. I consider the NSIDC to be an excellent source of valid information. So is the UCS, although their focus is not exclusively on the Arctic like the NSIDC. They are not in conflict with one another.

So tell me, do you see more sea ice in the Arctic now than in 1979 or just the opposite?

Looks like it spread out more over the years.

Cool image. Is there something like that for the Antarctic?

Well, actually it looks like it shrank quite a bit "over the years". But then you've already demonstrated that you have a lot of trouble comprehending what you see or read.

 

[gslack]

hey chris's sock can we see the rest of the pics in between those years now?

yeah ya posted the chain before and got embarrassed by it didn't ya douchebag.... What happened? Care to explain why you cut out the rest of the pics this time?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wow, you're really, really confused. I never said that. I consider the NSIDC to be an excellent source of valid information. So is the UCS, although their focus is not exclusively on the Arctic like the NSIDC. They are not in conflict with one another.

So tell me, do you see more sea ice in the Arctic now than in 1979 or just the opposite?

Looks like it spread out more over the years.

Cool image. Is there something like that for the Antarctic?

Well, actually it looks like it shrank quite a bit "over the years". But then you've already demonstrated that you have a lot of trouble comprehending what you see or read.

Northern Russia to the north about 300-400 miles, there is no ice and again some parts of Northern Canada has less ice today, but see how much wide spread the thick ice is with the "darker color" of purple in areas that has ice. Meaning a larger percentage of the ice on those maps to ice ratio is thicker then 1979 by my estimates about 2x times the area. Do you agree?