Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker

[RollingThunder]

The arctic Melt season is officially over,4 weeks ahead of schedule..

LOLOLOLOL......too funny....just the kind of delusional nonsense ol' BoobyBobNutJob would be sure to fall for.

"The arctic Melt season is officially over"....LOL...riiiight....if you google that phrase, you find it repeated ONLY on the denier cult blogs where one repeats the others, nowhere else. It's "official" only in their little fantasy world/echo chamber. In the real world, the end of the Arctic melt season has not been officially announced yet, but it usually occurs in mid September or so. The trend has been for the melt seasons to start earlier and end later, as AGW warms the Arctic several times faster than the rest of the planet.

NSIDC, NASA Say Arctic Melt Season Lengthening, Ocean Rapidly Warming
NASA
By Maria-José Viñas - NASA’s Earth Science News Team
March 31, 2014
(Government Publication - free to reproduce or reprint)
The length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap’s thickness, according to a new study by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA researchers.

Arctic sea ice has been in sharp decline during the last four decades. The sea ice cover is shrinking and thinning, making scientists think an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer might be reached this century. The seven lowest September sea ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the past seven years.

"The Arctic is warming and this is causing the melt season to last longer," said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at NSIDC, Boulder and lead author of the new study, which has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. "The lengthening of the melt season is allowing for more of the sun’s energy to get stored in the ocean and increase ice melt during the summer, overall weakening the sea ice cover."

dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?

Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???

So the melt continues in the Arctic during winter months, that's a kick. Perhaps you should first learn how the earth rotates and the key seasons of warm and cold. still a tool. If I had a hammer, oh wait you are one!

Moronically babbling gibberish again, I see, as is your habit, JustCrazy. The article I just cited talks about how AGW is lengthening the Arctic melt season so that the shift from freezing to melting (seasonal ice loss) starts earlier and the shift from melting to freezing (seasonal ice gain) starts later in the year. Your nonsense here is your usual meaningless twaddle based on a retarded inability to comprehend what is happening..

 

[RollingThunder]

You know...you would think that "Climategate" would have given the man made global warming religionists a moment to step back and think about the priests they are following...but no...too much money involved, too much power and false prestige...

Only bamboozled denier cult retards are still deluded enough to think that so-called 'climategate' was anything but a phony 'scandal' cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
Union of Concerned Scientists
8/25/11
(excerpts)
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

* A three-part PennStateUniversity cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
* Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
* The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
* The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
* Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
* Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
* An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas ​

 

[jc456]

The arctic Melt season is officially over,4 weeks ahead of schedule..

LOLOLOLOL......too funny....just the kind of delusional nonsense ol' BoobyBobNutJob would be sure to fall for.

"The arctic Melt season is officially over"....LOL...riiiight....if you google that phrase, you find it repeated ONLY on the denier cult blogs where one repeats the others, nowhere else. It's "official" only in their little fantasy world/echo chamber. In the real world, the end of the Arctic melt season has not been officially announced yet, but it usually occurs in mid September or so. The trend has been for the melt seasons to start earlier and end later, as AGW warms the Arctic several times faster than the rest of the planet.

NSIDC, NASA Say Arctic Melt Season Lengthening, Ocean Rapidly Warming
NASA
By Maria-José Viñas - NASA’s Earth Science News Team
March 31, 2014
(Government Publication - free to reproduce or reprint)
The length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap’s thickness, according to a new study by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA researchers.

Arctic sea ice has been in sharp decline during the last four decades. The sea ice cover is shrinking and thinning, making scientists think an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer might be reached this century. The seven lowest September sea ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the past seven years.

"The Arctic is warming and this is causing the melt season to last longer," said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at NSIDC, Boulder and lead author of the new study, which has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. "The lengthening of the melt season is allowing for more of the sun’s energy to get stored in the ocean and increase ice melt during the summer, overall weakening the sea ice cover."

dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?

Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???

So the melt continues in the Arctic during winter months, that's a kick. Perhaps you should first learn how the earth rotates and the key seasons of warm and cold. still a tool. If I had a hammer, oh wait you are one!

Moronically babbling gibberish again, I see, as is your habit, JustCrazy. The article I just cited talks about how AGW is lengthening the Arctic melt season so that the shift from freezing to melting (seasonal ice loss) starts earlier and the shift from melting to freezing (seasonal ice gain) starts later in the year. Your nonsense here is your usual meaningless twaddle based on a retarded inability to comprehend what is happening..

who cares what your article states. it isn't correct. There is more ice today then 2012. Please, you all and your ecstasy. Stay away from the pills.

 

[RollingThunder]

The arctic Melt season is officially over,4 weeks ahead of schedule..

LOLOLOLOL......too funny....just the kind of delusional nonsense ol' BoobyBobNutJob would be sure to fall for.

"The arctic Melt season is officially over"....LOL...riiiight....if you google that phrase, you find it repeated ONLY on the denier cult blogs where one repeats the others, nowhere else. It's "official" only in their little fantasy world/echo chamber. In the real world, the end of the Arctic melt season has not been officially announced yet, but it usually occurs in mid September or so. The trend has been for the melt seasons to start earlier and end later, as AGW warms the Arctic several times faster than the rest of the planet.

NSIDC, NASA Say Arctic Melt Season Lengthening, Ocean Rapidly Warming
NASA
By Maria-José Viñas - NASA’s Earth Science News Team
March 31, 2014
(Government Publication - free to reproduce or reprint)
The length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap’s thickness, according to a new study by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA researchers.

Arctic sea ice has been in sharp decline during the last four decades. The sea ice cover is shrinking and thinning, making scientists think an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer might be reached this century. The seven lowest September sea ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the past seven years.

dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?

Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???

So the melt continues in the Arctic during winter months, that's a kick. Perhaps you should first learn how the earth rotates and the key seasons of warm and cold. still a tool. If I had a hammer, oh wait you are one!

Moronically babbling gibberish again, I see, as is your habit, JustCrazy. The article I just cited talks about how AGW is lengthening the Arctic melt season so that the shift from freezing to melting (seasonal ice loss) starts earlier and the shift from melting to freezing (seasonal ice gain) starts later in the year. Your nonsense here is your usual meaningless twaddle based on a retarded inability to comprehend what is happening..

who cares what your article states. it isn't correct.

The NASA article "isn't correct"??? And you know this because???......you imagine that you're smarter and more knowledgeable than all those NASA scientists???....Rush told you so???.....the voices in your head told you so???....

LOLOLOLOL.....ah, rank denialism at its most insane levels....the stink of desperation is overpowering...

Hey, JustCrazy, what about that earlier question of yours and my response that you ignored?....what do you have to say??? Remember, you asked...."dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?"....and I responded...."Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???"
So....how about it, little retard, what do you imagine is the supposed significance of the NASA article being published at the end of March of this year? Or is this just another one of your meaningless brain-farts?

There is more ice today then 2012. Please, you all and your ecstasy. Stay away from the pills.

Yeah, two years after the largest single year drop in ice extent in recorded history in 2012, the ice extent (not volume) has quite expectedly rebounded somewhat, as it always does after reaching a new record low extent, this time to about the level it was at in 2008. The trend in ice extent and volume is still steeply downward.

 

[jc456]

[

Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???

Explain how the melting season is extended when it is winter, where ice is at its peak. you posted it so tough to say the season extends when it isn't in it yet.

Moronically babbling gibberish again, I see, as is your habit, JustCrazy. The article I just cited talks about how AGW is lengthening the Arctic melt season so that the shift from freezing to melting (seasonal ice loss) starts earlier and the shift from melting to freezing (seasonal ice gain) starts later in the year. Your nonsense here is your usual meaningless twaddle based on a retarded inability to comprehend what is happening..

who cares what your article states. it isn't correct.

[

The NASA article "isn't correct"??? And you know this because???......you imagine that you're smarter and more knowledgeable than all those NASA scientists???....Rush told you so???.....the voices in your head told you so???....

LOLOLOLOL.....ah, rank denialism at its most insane levels....the stink of desperation is overpowering...
.

Yes I challenge the NASA data, you bet blunderman! So what? What is it to you? Why are you so worried about what I find in error. My you are truly a jumpy blunder, rather than a rolling one. Whoa, little fella, take it easy and use a thinking cap, you'll have to borrow one because yours left you.

Hey, JustCrazy, what about that earlier question of yours and my response that you ignored?....what do you have to say??? Remember, you asked...."dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?"....and I responded...."Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???"
So....how about it, little retard, what do you imagine is the supposed significance of the NASA article being published at the end of March of this year? Or is this just another one of your meaningless brain-farts?
.

Explain how the melting season is extended when it is winter, where ice is at its peak. See March is the end of winter in the Arctic, not the end of summer. Holy crap blunderman, you don't know that? That is moronic! Glad you see you are.

There is more ice today then 2012. Please, you all and your ecstasy. Stay away from the pills.

Yeah, two years after the largest single year drop in ice extent in recorded history in 2012, the ice extent (not volume) has quite expectedly rebounded somewhat, as it always does after reaching a new record low extent, this time to about the level it was at in 2008. The trend in ice extent and volume is still steeply downward.

SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???" [/QUOTE]

 

[RollingThunder]

[

dude, do you ever read the dates on the material you post? Seriously?

Yeah, of course, this last one was March 31st, 2014. SO WHAT??? SERIOUSLY, MORON, SO FUCKING WHAT???

So....how about it, little retard, what do you imagine is the supposed significance of the NASA article being published at the end of March of this year? Or is this just another one of your meaningless brain-farts?

Explain how the melting season is extended when it is winter, where ice is at its peak. you posted it so tough to say the season extends when it isn't in it yet.

As I just said: "Moronically babbling gibberish again, I see, as is your habit, JustCrazy. The article I just cited talks about how AGW is lengthening the Arctic melt season so that the shift from freezing to melting (seasonal ice loss) starts earlier and the shift from melting to freezing (seasonal ice gain) starts later in the year. Your nonsense here is your usual meaningless twaddle based on a retarded inability to comprehend what is happening."

Try again, you poor cretin.

Arctic melt season begins in the spring when the winter gains in ice formation come to an end and the ice begins its yearly melting. According to the NASA study, this is happening earlier in the year due to the warming effects of AGW. The Arctic melt season ends in (usually) mid-September when the melting stops and the winter season re-freezing and build up of ice starts. This is happening later in the year, on average, due to the warming effects of AGW.

What exactly are you incapable of comprehending here, little retard?

 

[2aguy]

Union of Concerned scientists...that's like Nambla saying there was nothing wrong with the Penn State case...

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash Part One - Forbes

When Lindzen was informed during the interview that the first three allegations had already been dismissed at the inquiry stage, his response, as quoted in the Committee’s report, was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what is going on?”

Dr. Lindzen’s bewilderment is understandable. Concerning the Committee’s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) — characterizing the “trick” to “hide the decline” as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology, ignored or misconstrued salient facts. While Mann’s own research methodology and results have indeed been challenged as fatally flawed, the actual trick should be examined within a broader context.

First, there is a widespread misconception that the reference to a decline refers to concealing an observed fall in global temperatures since a peak in 1998, the warmest year for some time. Instead, it really has to do with graphic trickery suggesting that man-made CO2 emissions over the past 40 years have produced a nearly vertical temperature escalation.

A 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well that’s when tree ring proxy data calculations by CRU’s Keith Briffa began going the other way in a steady decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. Briffa did, and the decline became even greater.

 

[Crick]

That is not quite correct.

1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" - it refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitudes.
2. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline", instead refering to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature along with pastreconstructions.
3. The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC report

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline' Link to this page What the science says... Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline': The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" - it refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitudes. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline", instead refering to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature along with pastreconstructions. The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports. [TBODY] [/TBODY] Climate Myth... Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature 'Perhaps the most infamous example of this comes from the "hide the decline" email. This email initially garnered widespread media attention, as well as significant disagreement over its implications. In our view, the email, as well as the contextual history behind it, appears to show several scientists eager to present a particular viewpoint-that anthropogenic emissions are largely responsible for global warming-even when the data showed something different.' (David Lungren) "Hide the decline" has become a slogan for climate skeptics. However, there are several misconceptions concerning this email that give a misleading picture of the science discussed in Phil Jones' email. When one takes the time to read the email and understand the science discussed, the misconceptions are easily put into proper context. The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. Figure 1: Twenty-year smoothed plots of tree-ring width (dashed line) and tree-ring density (thick solid line), averaged across a network of mid-northern latitude boreal forest sites and compared with equivalent-area averages of mean April to September temperature anomalies (thin solid line). (Briffa 1998) Does the divergence problem mean we cannot rely on tree-ring growth as a proxy for temperature in the past? Briffa 1998 shows that tree-ring width and density show close agreement with temperature back to 1880. To examine earlier periods, one study split a network of tree sites into northern and southern groups (Cook 2004). While the northern group showed significant divergence after the 1960s, the southern group was consistent with recent warming trends. This is a general trend with the divergence problem - trees from high northern latitudes show divergence while low latitude trees show little to no divergence. Before the 1960s, the northern and southern trees tracked each other reasonably well back to the Medieval Warm Period. This suggests the current divergence problem is unique over the past thousand years and restricted to recent decades. The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick". Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture: "A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline." Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". Somehow Jones' original email has morphed into "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" to the point where even Professor Muller quotes this line as fact. So what is "Mike's Nature trick"? This refers to a technique (in other words, "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann et al 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. The temperature reconstruction was extended back to 1000 AD and published in Mann et al 1999 which was reproduced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, shown below: Figure 3: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (Mann et al 1999). There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled in Mann's 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al 1999 and the IPCC Third Assessment Report. To claim this is some sort of secret, nefarious "trick", or worse - to confuse this with "hide the decline" - displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead. The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995 While skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists' have tried to keep secret, the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). In Phil Jones' email, he was discussing a graph for the cover of an obscure 1999 World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report, which depicted both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings. The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): [T]he figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludesthat divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.” [1.3.2] How do the IPCC portray the temperature reconstructions of Mann and Briffa? In the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR), the Chapter 2 of Working Group 1 (WG1) presentedreconstructions from Mann et al. (1999), Jones et al. (1998), and Briffa (2000) in Figure 2.21: Briffa (2000) included data up to the year 2000, whereas the study's tree ring data presented in this figure is truncated at the year 1960. Section 2.3.2.1 of the IPCC TAR WG1(Paleoclimate proxy indicators) has a sub-section devoted to a detailed discussion of tree ring data, including the following text (Page 131): There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible nonclimatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). The IPCC TAR contains explicit discussion of the shortcomings of high latitude tree rings as an accurate temperature proxy over the past several decades, some possible reasons for the divergence, and how the divergence problem should be treated (by supplementing it with other proxies). As with the TAR, the tree ring proxy data and divergence problem discussion in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) is detailed and explicit. Below is the relevant discussion fromAR4 WG1 Section 6.6.1.1 (Page 472-473), emphasis added: “Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).” Again, there is explicit discussion of the divergence problem (even moreso than in theTAR), of its possible causes, and how it should be dealt with scientifically. In this case, the text specifically states that the post-1960 data is excluded from the Briffa et al. (2001) data plotted in Figure 6.10: The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a short quote, often misquoted and taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real. ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[SSDD]

52 excuses for the halt in warming...how many for hide the decline?..

 

[Crick]

52 excuses for the halt in warming...how many for hide the decline?..

Climate scientists have not put forth 52 "excuses" for the halt in warming. That effort is a tongue-in-cheek barrel of bullshit from the denier community. This recent effort to actually claim that it is the product of mainstream climate science seems an excellent demonstration of how low is the denier regard for honesty.

The actual meaning of "hide the decline" - that it is a method of dealing with the relatively sudden change in proportionality between ring width and temperature in the early 20th century - has been an open, mutually agreed upon and consistent point from dendrochronologists since the term first came to public awareness. The consistent claim by deniers that such is not the case, is simply more inexcusable denier lying.