Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Chris]

sure it does as it is another example of the warmers being wrong

Not really.

I give you links supporting my argument and the best you can come back with is "not really". I guess if I were still in school, I would respond with a "sez you". Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and your comprehension.

Personal insults are not going to stop the ice cap from melting.

You guys really are grasping at straws.

 

[RollingThunder]

EVERYONE knows how much hotter it feels to wear a black T-shirt, rather than a white one, on a warm day.

In the same way, the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, revealing the dark water below, has been shown by Australian scientists to be the main cause of unusually rapid warming at the top of the world.

Confirmation of this "feedback loop" means the region is likely to continue to warm strongly, with greater loss of sea ice and possible melting of the ice sheets.

James Screen and Ian Simmonds, of the University of Melbourne, said the rise in surface temperatures in the Arctic in the past 20 years had been more than double the global average.

Melting ice makes the Arctic a vicious circle

What's so unusual about the warming? That arctic ice sheet used to cover all of North America, its been melting for the last 15,000 years.

LOLOLOLOL.....jeez, dude, you seem even more ignorant than the other denier cultists and I would have bet that was impossible. You really believe that the ice sheets that covered North America and Europe melted away in a linear progression starting 15,000 years ago? LOLOLOLOL. You must have flunked every science course you ever took, if indeed you ever took any to begin with, which seems doubtful.

The last glaciation started to end about 15,000 years ago with some up and downs but it finished melting about ten or eleven thousand years ago and the average world temperatures have been pretty stable since then. The current warming is unusual in the context of this long period of climate stability.

 

[RollingThunder]

Exactly. You never hear these doom and gloom libs talk about past ice ages. You'll never hear them mention the fact that our world has been much warmer, and much colder at many points in its history.

Scientists talk about these things all the time and they understand what they're talking about. You don't. Your belief that ice ages and warmer periods are ignored is just another of your denier cult delusions.

They claim to embrace scientific fact, but the truth is they ignore scientific facts that don't suit their political agenda.

A perfect description of you farrightwingnut demented denier cultists. Pretty near all of your arguments are basically political and not scientific.

 

[westwall]

"it does so in only one spectrum band"

Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point.

It proves nothing. CO2 has many spectrums that have no effect at all but the AGW folks calculate the whole thing. When it is calculated correctly it does not have the effect you all claim. Quit trying to be a smart aleck and have a cogent conversation, we have enough juvenile behavior with trolling blunder.

Sorry, it is tough to have a coversation with someone that claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Why do you think Venus is hotter than Mercury?

Ahh there you go puttin words in my mouth and that is not kosher old bean. I never said it was not a GHG, I said it was being overvalued as a GHG. All of the AGW agenda is to over estimate the effects of CO2. All of the AGW agenda is to misrepresent the numbers and to manufacture data. Please read my other posts, if AGW is occuring I want to know it.

Unfortunately because of the outrageous violations of scientific protocol, and the outright fabrication of most of the data that has been used to formulate policy I no longer believe anything that the AGW proponents say. I was a firm believer in AGW until I did a ton of research and realised that the theory was wrong. Then when I found out that the people driving the bus were making bazillions off of the project at the expense of the taxpayers I got quite cross. I don't like being lied too. Clearly you don't mind yet.

And the last time I checked the atmosphere of Venus is considerably denser than ours, on the order of 80-90 atmospheres at the surface if I remember correctly, that is roughly the equivalent of being 1 kilometer deep in the ocean. It is also .24 or .25 au closer to the sun, it has a slower rotational speed than the earth, 240 or so days, and it's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. So it is hotter than Mercury because of the density of its atmosphere as the primary driving variable. It could have an atmosphere of pure argon and would probably be just as hot.

Trying to compare the two is like comparing an apple with a bowling ball. Yes they are certainly both round (well mostly, whereas the planets are both oblate spheroids, but I think you get my drift)...but after that there really isn't a whole lot that's similar.


Here is another site (I know it is a prohibited skeptic blog but I have to look at your so you have to look at mine) and it gives a better picture of why CO2 is not the GHG it is claimed to be. Yes it is a GHG. But no it is not nearly as effective as claimed.

 

[RollingThunder]

And yet the CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the mean temperatures have been warmer in the past and the Earth seemed to manage just fine.

What an idiotic post. Saying that the "Earth seemed to manage just fine" ignores the fact that our problem with global warming has to do with the fact that there are now nearly 7 billion humans living on the Earth, many of them living very near the coasts and all of us dependent on a world agricultural system that is very vulnerable to even small climate changes. The planet Earth may "manage just fine" but we humans won't.

Claimed proof that humankind contributed all or even a small fraction of any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly refutable. Also any claimed proof that the anthropogenically produced CO2 is creating any significant or unmanageable 'issues' for humankind is also refutable.

Wrong again, denier cultist retard. Mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40% over pre-industrial levels and this is confirmed by analyzing the carbon isotope balance in the carbon dioxide. The increase is clearly from fossil fuel sources.

You couldn't 'refute' your way out of a wet paper bag, numbnuts.

 

[RollingThunder]

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years, which is as far back as the ice cores go.

Just a point of clarification, Chris. Mankind's CO2 emissions are actually approaching 30 billion tons per year. Some sources will refer to just the weight of the carbon, which is a bit less than 9 billions tons per year. The weight of carbon emissions differs from that of carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is 3.67 times heavier than carbon alone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years, which is as far back as the ice cores go.

Just a point of clarification, Chris. Mankind's CO2 emissions are actually approaching 30 billion tons per year. Some sources will refer to just the weight of the carbon, which is a bit less than 9 billions tons per year. The weight of carbon emissions differs from that of carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is 3.67 times heavier than carbon alone.

China is going to cause that to keep going up. They've said that they went to build a coal plant every week and they don't give a damn about the environment. Look at their rivers or a satellite, and you will shit moving out over the pacific like you can't believe. The United states is the most advance and clean nation for the ratio of what we produce. Clean is good and we should be, but if your right and we're fucked than we some how gots to pull china into it; I don't think they give a damn. I went clean water and air, but if your right about this global warming then we only have a small part next to that cluster fuck. They have 4 times the population of the united states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests.

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com

Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.

 

[Oddball]

"it does so in only one spectrum band"

Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point.

It proves nothing. CO2 has many spectrums that have no effect at all but the AGW folks calculate the whole thing. When it is calculated correctly it does not have the effect you all claim. Quit trying to be a smart aleck and have a cogent conversation, we have enough juvenile behavior with trolling blunder.

Sorry, it is tough to have a coversation with someone that claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Why do you think Venus is hotter than Mercury?

Because any atmosphere will hold more heat than no atmosphere, simpleton.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet the CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the mean temperatures have been warmer in the past and the Earth seemed to manage just fine.

What an idiotic post. Saying that the "Earth seemed to manage just fine" ignores the fact that our problem with global warming has to do with the fact that there are now nearly 7 billion humans living on the Earth, many of them living very near the coasts and all of us dependent on a world agricultural system that is very vulnerable to even small climate changes. The planet Earth may "manage just fine" but we humans won't.

Claimed proof that humankind contributed all or even a small fraction of any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly refutable. Also any claimed proof that the anthropogenically produced CO2 is creating any significant or unmanageable 'issues' for humankind is also refutable.

Wrong again, denier cultist retard. Mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40% over pre-industrial levels and this is confirmed by analyzing the carbon isotope balance in the carbon dioxide. The increase is clearly from fossil fuel sources.

You couldn't 'refute' your way out of a wet paper bag, numbnuts.

So, just as populations have had to adapt and adjust and change locations during previous climate changes, it is possible that folks may have to do that again in the future.

I suspect that if we were somehow able to bust the entire world population back to the pre-industrialization era, something that would cause untold misery and suffering to most of humankind, you would see very little if any decrease in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. At any rate, the reduction would be too little to reverse any climate change that is happening.

And the last I read up, you could put all those almost 7 billion people in Texas and have a population density about the same as San Francisco. Were that done, it would leave a very large amount of the world empty of people.

The way to combat all the world's problems is to encourage modernization and prosperity. It is the world's most affluent people who demand a clean environment, protection of species, and who appreciate aesthetic beauty. Make as many people prosperous as possible and you'll see innovation that will allow us to live in as much peace as possible with our environment and whatever climate change will occur.

Keep people poor, and keeping a roof over their head and food in their mouths takes precedence over any other issues. Some of the airbrained ideas of the pro-AGW activbsts would doom whole large groups of people to more generations of crushing poverty.

And I'm guessing you don't have a clue what a 'numbnut' is.

 

[nraforlife]

............ Pretty near all of your arguments are basically political and not scientific.

I wager you say that to yourself every time you look in a mirror.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests.

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com

And yet with all the hysteria we get this
Pacific Islands Growing, Not Sinking

Wow....you are spectacularly clueless, jeffrockhead. The thread topic is Arctic sea ice so you are way off topic but the real hoot is how awful and phony your source is. You must be really gullible to believe a nutjob like Benny Peiser or anything off of denier cult blog like his. He is a social anthropologist and has no education, training or experience in climate science. He is a proven liar. His claims about the islands are false. You've been duped, again.

Benny Peiser

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. He runs CCNet (network) and is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

Peiser makes invalid claims on climate change scientific consensus

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[1] Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[2][3][4]

Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"

Peiser claims to be a climate change "skeptic," but on October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." [1]

Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist or Climate Policy Analysist

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser's departmental webpage describes him as:-[5]

* Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
* Main research interests:
o societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
o social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
o ritualised and sanctioned violence
o origins and evolution of sport


(Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.)

 

[RollingThunder]

Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.

I already debunked your denier cult delusions and myths over here.

You are wrong about everything you claim here. You've been bamboozled by the clever propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted to confuse people about the reality and dangers of global warming/climate change, in an attempt to delay world action to limit carbon emissions and thus their profits.

 

[driveby]

And the only way you can attribute this fact to AGW is to ignore two basic tenets of science, the first being correlation does not equal causation and the second is of course Occams Razor. We have well documented historically warmer periods independent of any possible effect by man. Why is it that all of a sudden we are the only possible source of the heating this time?

That is a strawman argument. No one is saying that we are the only possible source of the heating at this time.

But the solar scientists say that the solar changes are causing only a fraction of the warming in the last century, and now the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. So it should be getting cooler, but it isn't.

Come on, don't make a fool of yourself.

You're about 2 years too late for that, chrissy joined in 2008 .......

 

[RollingThunder]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

 

[gslack]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Like my knew sig? yeah its a link to the post where you said it too....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

 

[westwall]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Blunder,

If you wish for anyone to take you seriously ever again you need to lay off the infantile insults, post cogent arguments, apologise to gslack for your incredible cad like behavior, and then and only then will anyone listen to what you have to say. Right now you are regarded as a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum so we don't hear you....got it?

Good, now go away.

 

[Oddball]

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Blunder,

If you wish for anyone to take you seriously ever again you need to lay off the infantile insults, post cogent arguments, apologise to gslack for your incredible cad like behavior, and then and only then will anyone listen to what you have to say. Right now you are regarded as a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum so we don't hear you....got it?

Good, now go away.

That pretty much covers the general attitude of the AGW cargo cultists to begin with.

Question their "facts", provide other data that tends to debunk and disprove the theory, and/or point out the logical flaws in the conclusions they've drawn, and they screech DENIER!, as though this is Salem in the 1690s.

They've become so old hat that it's now rather amusing.