New record low max Arctic ice extent, second year in a row

[Crick]

So, you think there was no data before 1972 available? And you think 4 decades of satellite data should be used to tout records when there have been millions of years of climate? Even temp data from the last 160 years would have more relevance than 4 decades worth, which still would be extremely lacking.p
And other data suggests they are stretching the truth.

They typically use the most recent 3 decade period. 1972 is the beginning of satellite data. Did that confuse you? And what issue were you addressing? Did you think the selection of baseline was the reason for the record value? If so, sorry, no.

It isn't a temperature record, it's an ice extents maximum record. There have been no such data worth the paper they're printed on since the beginning of satellite observations.

 

[Crick]

"December, January and February were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in nearly every region...."

" Average January temperatures range from about −40 to 0 °C (−40 to +32 °F), and winter temperatures can drop below −50 °C (−58 °F) over large parts of the Arctic...."

Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, 4 degrees warmer than -40 is still pretty fucking cold, no?

So it doesn't matter? Argument from Incredulity?

so what is the matter with a -36 reading rather than -40? What is magically happening we're not aware of? enlighten the class.

That spot on the planet got significantly warmer than it has historically been. Why do I need to explain this to you?

and so what? it is 4 degrees warmer at -36. so what, what is it that is going to magically happen. Again, we've been waiting for that explanation.

Asked and answered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hold up on buying the snow cone maker, got ya....

So you two are taking the position that even if the normal temperature for a given location at a given time of the year were -40C, there is absolutely no need to worry about anything until it reaches 0C+. Right?

Do you agree that the average of 0 and -40 is -20?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Funny;

The 15% sea ice coverage number is lower while the multiyear (layered ice) has grown by 1.2% over the last two years.. Now why would we put stock in the very fluctuating single year ice and ignore the multi year ice which has been growing now for 7 years?

Oh the drama from the left.... were in no danger of it melting away as it is STACKING UP and growing in depth..

The left ignoring the reality in an effort to make you give up your rights with their hype and deceptions..

Its also more about coverage then thickness, the more coverage, the more sunlight reflected...

 

[jc456]

"December, January and February were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in nearly every region...."

" Average January temperatures range from about −40 to 0 °C (−40 to +32 °F), and winter temperatures can drop below −50 °C (−58 °F) over large parts of the Arctic...."

Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, 4 degrees warmer than -40 is still pretty fucking cold, no?

So it doesn't matter? Argument from Incredulity?

so what is the matter with a -36 reading rather than -40? What is magically happening we're not aware of? enlighten the class.

That spot on the planet got significantly warmer than it has historically been. Why do I need to explain this to you?

and so what? it is 4 degrees warmer at -36. so what, what is it that is going to magically happen. Again, we've been waiting for that explanation.

Asked and answered.

no it wasn't. you fail again.
and so what? it is 4 degrees warmer at -36. so what, what is it that is going to magically happen. Again, we've been waiting for that explanation

 

[jc456]

Hold up on buying the snow cone maker, got ya....

So you two are taking the position that even if the normal temperature for a given location at a given time of the year were -40C, there is absolutely no need to worry about anything until it reaches 0C+. Right?

Do you agree that the average of 0 and -40 is -20?

well then in his world, -20 is normal and being at 0 would be catastrophic.

 

[jc456]

So, you think there was no data before 1972 available? And you think 4 decades of satellite data should be used to tout records when there have been millions of years of climate? Even temp data from the last 160 years would have more relevance than 4 decades worth, which still would be extremely lacking.p
And other data suggests they are stretching the truth.

They typically use the most recent 3 decade period. 1972 is the beginning of satellite data. Did that confuse you? And what issue were you addressing? Did you think the selection of baseline was the reason for the record value? If so, sorry, no.

It isn't a temperature record, it's an ice extents maximum record. There have been no such data worth the paper they're printed on since the beginning of satellite observations.

how cold must it be to make ice in sea water?

 

[depotoo]

So, in otherwords, 40 years of data, that even they say is not totally reliable, is not indicative of a real record, now is it? And you do realize that satellites do have operational problems, and have ever since their launch, yet we are to believe their "records" are accurate?
GOES Status - Office of Satellite and Product Operations

So, you think there was no data before 1979 available? And you think 4 decades of satellite data should be used to tout records when there have been millions of years of climate? Even temp data from the last 160 years would have more relevance than 4 decades worth, which still would be extremely lacking.p
And other data suggests they are stretching the truth.

They typically use the most recent 3 decade period. 1972 is the beginning of satellite data. Did that confuse you? And what issue were you addressing? Did you think the selection of baseline was the reason for the record value? If so, sorry, no.

It isn't a temperature record, it's an ice extents maximum record. There have been no such data worth the paper they're printed on since the beginning of satellite observations.

 

[saveliberty]

Hold up on buying the snow cone maker, got ya....

So you two are taking the position that even if the normal temperature for a given location at a given time of the year were -40C, there is absolutely no need to worry about anything until it reaches 0C+. Right?

Ah no, just trying to save ice...

 

[saveliberty]

That spot on the planet got significantly warmer than it has historically been. Why do I need to explain this to you?

Still not going to melt at -40 or -36. If it results in early and late season melts, then there is a loss. I watch snow melt all winter long. You know what matters besides temperature? Sunlight. It melts here all the time at 20 degrees and full sun. Of course solar radiation is not dependent on man.

 

[depotoo]

And explain to me why the data I posted earlier doesn't agree.

 

[mamooth]

and so what? it is 4 degrees warmer at -36. so what, what is it that is going to magically happen. Again, we've been waiting for that explanation

Less ice will form.

That would be why less ice formed.

The colder it gets, the more freezing of water you get.

Why does such basic science elude you? Grade schoolers have no trouble with these simple things, but you fail hard at them. Most deniers are simply rather stupid people.

 

[jc456]

and so what? it is 4 degrees warmer at -36. so what, what is it that is going to magically happen. Again, we've been waiting for that explanation

Less ice will form.

That would be why less ice formed.

The colder it gets, the more freezing of water you get.

Why does such basic science elude you? Grade schoolers have no trouble with these simple things, but you fail hard at them. Most deniers are simply rather stupid people.

less ice will form? really, so there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36?

Shit I never knew that. I put a can of beer in a zero degree freezer for over two hours and the sucker is frozen solid. but there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36. wow, I never knew this. I was taught below 32 or 29 with salt water.

 

[mamooth]

So, in other words, 40 years of data,

No, 63 years of good data, going back to 1953.

TC - Abstract - A simple approach to providing a more consistent Arctic sea ice extent time series from the 1950s to present

And try to understand how science works. You yelling "But .. but ... can you prove there wasn't a magical massive melt before?" isn't science. Since you're the one making the conspiracy claims, it's up to you to prove them.

 

[mamooth]

less ice will form? really, so there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36?

This year, here in Indianapolis, the White River never froze over. There were many days below freezing, some ice formed at the edges of the river, but the river never froze over in the middle.

In other years, during colder winters, when the average temperature was colder, the river did freeze over completely.

Colder means more freezing. Even a slow first-grader understands something that simple, but like I said, most deniers are morons.

Shit I never knew that. I put a can of beer in a zero degree freezer for over two hours and the sucker is frozen solid. but there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36. wow, I never knew this. I was taught below 32 or 29 with salt water.

According to your magic theory, if the oceans are exposed to -1C, even for a second, the whole ocean should freeze solid instantly. -1C for a second or -100C for a month, there's no difference. According to the jc theory, freezing is freezing. You theory, of course, is hilariously stupid.

 

[Crick]

So, in otherwords, 40 years of data, that even they say is not totally reliable, is not indicative of a real record, now is it? And you do realize that satellites do have operational problems, and have ever since their launch, yet we are to believe their "records" are accurate?
GOES Status - Office of Satellite and Product Operations

So, you think there was no data before 1979 available? And you think 4 decades of satellite data should be used to tout records when there have been millions of years of climate? Even temp data from the last 160 years would have more relevance than 4 decades worth, which still would be extremely lacking.p
And other data suggests they are stretching the truth.

They typically use the most recent 3 decade period. 1972 is the beginning of satellite data. Did that confuse you? And what issue were you addressing? Did you think the selection of baseline was the reason for the record value? If so, sorry, no.

It isn't a temperature record, it's an ice extents maximum record. There have been no such data worth the paper they're printed on since the beginning of satellite observations.

There is nothing wrong with satellite image data

 

[saveliberty]

On our lakes around here the ice becomes deeper when the temperature stays below 32 for extended periods. That would result in more ice. Thing is, it all melts over time.

 

[depotoo]

And so 60 after there are thousands to millions of years in climate is indicative of records? And I posted another official source that also shows otherwise? No.
By the way, you guys need to get your talking points in sync.

So, in other words, 40 years of data,

No, 63 years of good data, going back to 1953.

TC - Abstract - A simple approach to providing a more consistent Arctic sea ice extent time series from the 1950s to present

And try to understand how science works. You yelling "But .. but ... can you prove there wasn't a magical massive melt before?" isn't science. Since you're the one making the conspiracy claims, it's up to you to prove them.

 

[depotoo]

Oh, please!! I know of the outages at pertinent times. Not to mention times of cloud cover! Don't even state it does not make a difference.

So, in otherwords, 40 years of data, that even they say is not totally reliable, is not indicative of a real record, now is it? And you do realize that satellites do have operational problems, and have ever since their launch, yet we are to believe their "records" are accurate?
GOES Status - Office of Satellite and Product Operations

So, you think there was no data before 1979 available? And you think 4 decades of satellite data should be used to tout records when there have been millions of years of climate? Even temp data from the last 160 years would have more relevance than 4 decades worth, which still would be extremely lacking.p
And other data suggests they are stretching the truth.

They typically use the most recent 3 decade period. 1972 is the beginning of satellite data. Did that confuse you? And what issue were you addressing? Did you think the selection of baseline was the reason for the record value? If so, sorry, no.

It isn't a temperature record, it's an ice extents maximum record. There have been no such data worth the paper they're printed on since the beginning of satellite observations.

There is nothing wrong with satellite image data

 

[jc456]

less ice will form? really, so there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36?

This year, here in Indianapolis, the White River never froze over. There were many days below freezing, some ice formed at the edges of the river, but the river never froze over in the middle.

In other years, during colder winters, when the average temperature was colder, the river did freeze over completely.

Colder means more freezing. Even a slow first-grader understands something that simple, but like I said, most deniers are morons.

Shit I never knew that. I put a can of beer in a zero degree freezer for over two hours and the sucker is frozen solid. but there is magic water that doesn't freeze at -36. wow, I never knew this. I was taught below 32 or 29 with salt water.

According to your magic theory, if the oceans are exposed to -1C, even for a second, the whole ocean should freeze solid instantly. -1C for a second or -100C for a month, there's no difference. According to the jc theory, freezing is freezing. You theory, of course, is hilariously stupid.

excuse me while I laugh my balls off from your post. you don't understand why the water in a river didn't freeze. Holy fk are you stupid. Do you know what plumbers tell house owners to do in the winter when temps go below freezing for a long period of time? They tell them to go to the faucet and let water trickle out of the pipes. do you know why they would say that? face palm, wow. I don't know. for someone who brags about yourself as much as you do this is simply unbelievable.

here's a link on how fast water can freeze.:

Yes, tossing boiling water in cold air makes snow (but it also burns you)
throwing boiling water in the air when the air is freezing. That's how fast water can freeze.