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

[RollingThunder]

Shitforbrains Thunder and Matthew think the public is home doing google searches about arctic ice every night. Ask 100 people, "Who is the NOAA?" or "What is the Royal Society?".

How many people know? One out of 100? Maybe?

Probably true among the clueless retards you hang with, Kookles.

Normal people aren't that ignorant.

Judging by skookerasbil polls, thank God normal people are not as gullible as you.

If you're gullible enough to "judge" anything by the fraudulent bullshit the kookster posts, you really are insane, bearbutt.

Here's an example of 'normal peple', numbnuts.

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015
(excerpts)
A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

Seventy-five percent of Americans polled said that global warming was already having a serious environmental impact or would in the future. Nine in 10 Democrats agreed, compared with 58 percent of Republicans. One-third of Republicans said they believed it would never have much of an impact on the environment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Shitforbrains Thunder and Matthew think the public is home doing google searches about arctic ice every night. Ask 100 people, "Who is the NOAA?" or "What is the Royal Society?".

How many people know? One out of 100? Maybe?

Probably true among the clueless retards you hang with, Kookles.

Normal people aren't that ignorant.

Judging by skookerasbil polls, thank God normal people are not as gullible as you.

If you're gullible enough to "judge" anything by the fraudulent bullshit the kookster posts, you really are insane, bearbutt.

Here's an example of 'normal peple', numbnuts.

Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact
The New York Times
By GIOVANNI RUSSONELLO
NOV. 30, 2015
(excerpts)
A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

Seventy-five percent of Americans polled said that global warming was already having a serious environmental impact or would in the future. Nine in 10 Democrats agreed, compared with 58 percent of Republicans. One-third of Republicans said they believed it would never have much of an impact on the environment.

Like I said thank God americans are not as gullible as you...

From as liberal as you can get, huffpost.


Americans Largely Unconcerned About Climate Change, Survey Finds

Americans Largely Unconcerned About Climate Change, Survey Finds




.

 

[Crick]

And this means what concerning scientific validity or actual threat?

 

[jc456]

And this means what concerning scientific validity or actual threat?

exactly!

 

[RollingThunder]

And this means what concerning scientific validity or actual threat?

exactly!

So....you're too stupid to grasp the question?

 

[Crick]

Asking someone whether or not we should have signed the Paris Climate Accords and asking them to list the ten biggest problems facing us are two completely different things.

In this world of crises left and right, it is not surprising that a problem that appears to be a good century away should not make the top ten. That does NOT mean people do not have strong feelings about that problem or believe that we should act on it.

A majority of the American people accept AGW as valid and believe the government should act on it. Where it ranks in the class of "Problems" is irrelevant and meaningless, unless you're as abominably stupid as poster skookerasshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Snow...in the Caribbean!

It's the warmest snow to ever fall in the Caribbean in April!

 

[Crick]

The loss of both ice extents and total mass in the Arctic over the last forty years is a clear and undeniable indication of extensive global warming. It is NOT the product of falsified data records.

 

[jc456]

And this means what concerning scientific validity or actual threat?

exactly!

So....you're too stupid to grasp the question?

I'm too smart

 

[jc456]

The loss of both ice extents and total mass in the Arctic over the last forty years is a clear and undeniable indication of extensive global warming. It is NOT the product of falsified data records.

says who exactly?

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.






Fig. 2 Total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS showing the volume of the mean annual cycle, the current year, 2010 (the year of previous September volume minimum), and 2007 (the year of minimum sea ice extent in September). Shaded areas indicate one and two standard deviations from the mean.




Fig.3 Monthly Sea Ice Volume from PIOMAS for April and Sep.




Fig 4.Average Arctic sea ice thickness over the ice-covered regions from PIOMAS for a selection of years. The average thickness is calculated for the PIOMAS domain by only including locations where ice is thicker than .15 m.




Fig 5. Monthly average sea ice thickness in September 2015 from PIOMAS. Click for Animation from 1979 to 2015

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Says the University of Washington.

 

[Billy_Bob]

NASA now admitting that their satellite has malfunctioned for some time and has now been corrected.. Opp'sie.. Bye Bye low'est stories...

Sensor degradation has been showing very low ice levels which were in error..

 

[Crick]

You are correct. However, a similar error MAY invalidate the recent growth in Antarctic ice.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are correct. However, a similar error MAY invalidate the recent growth in Antarctic ice.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record

AH... NO! The sensor degradation was showing to little ice not to much...

 

[Crick]

That's not what the article said dude.

 

[Crick]

From NSIDC.ORG
Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended
April 12, 2016


NSIDC has suspended daily sea ice extent updates until further notice, due to issues with the satellite data used to produce these images. The vertically polarized 37 GHz channel (37V) of the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures is providing spurious data. The 37V channel is one of the inputs to the sea ice retrieval algorithms, so this is resulting in erroneous estimates of sea ice concentration and extent. The problem was initially seen in data for April 5 and all data since then are unreliable, so we have chosen to remove all of April from NSIDC’s archive.

It is unknown at this time if or when the problem with F-17 can be fixed. In the event that the sensor has permanently failed, NSIDC is working to transition to either the DMSP F-18 or possibly the JAXA Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on the Global Change Observation Mission – Water (GCOM-W) satellite. Transitioning to a different satellite will require a careful calibration against the F-17 data to ensure consistency over the long-term time series. While this transition is of high priority, NSIDC has no firm timeline on when it will be able to resume providing the sea ice time series. For background information on the challenges of using data in near-real-time, see the ASINA FAQ, “Do your data undergo quality control?”

Posted in Analysis

Here is the VALID Arctic data

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time for a new satellite to replace this one!

 

[Crick]

From NSIDC.ORG
Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended
April 12, 2016


NSIDC has suspended daily sea ice extent updates until further notice, due to issues with the satellite data used to produce these images. The vertically polarized 37 GHz channel (37V) of the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures is providing spurious data. The 37V channel is one of the inputs to the sea ice retrieval algorithms, so this is resulting in erroneous estimates of sea ice concentration and extent. The problem was initially seen in data for April 5 and all data since then are unreliable, so we have chosen to remove all of April from NSIDC’s archive.

It is unknown at this time if or when the problem with F-17 can be fixed. In the event that the sensor has permanently failed, NSIDC is working to transition to either the DMSP F-18 or possibly the JAXA Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on the Global Change Observation Mission – Water (GCOM-W) satellite. Transitioning to a different satellite will require a careful calibration against the F-17 data to ensure consistency over the long-term time series. While this transition is of high priority, NSIDC has no firm timeline on when it will be able to resume providing the sea ice time series. For background information on the challenges of using data in near-real-time, see the ASINA FAQ, “Do your data undergo quality control?”

Posted in Analysis

Here is the VALID Arctic data

The record low max stands.

 

[jc456]

From NSIDC.ORG
Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended
April 12, 2016


NSIDC has suspended daily sea ice extent updates until further notice, due to issues with the satellite data used to produce these images. The vertically polarized 37 GHz channel (37V) of the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures is providing spurious data. The 37V channel is one of the inputs to the sea ice retrieval algorithms, so this is resulting in erroneous estimates of sea ice concentration and extent. The problem was initially seen in data for April 5 and all data since then are unreliable, so we have chosen to remove all of April from NSIDC’s archive.

It is unknown at this time if or when the problem with F-17 can be fixed. In the event that the sensor has permanently failed, NSIDC is working to transition to either the DMSP F-18 or possibly the JAXA Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on the Global Change Observation Mission – Water (GCOM-W) satellite. Transitioning to a different satellite will require a careful calibration against the F-17 data to ensure consistency over the long-term time series. While this transition is of high priority, NSIDC has no firm timeline on when it will be able to resume providing the sea ice time series. For background information on the challenges of using data in near-real-time, see the ASINA FAQ, “Do your data undergo quality control?”

Posted in Analysis

Here is the VALID Arctic data

The record low max stands.

The record low max stands

where does it stand?