Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[Foxfyre]

If it turns out that humans have little or no ability to control the global climate, shouldn't the money and research be channeled into helping people be able to adapt to the inevitable rather than continue in an exercise of futility?

 

[westwall]

My word....what an embarassing thread!

Poor old Westwall!


It's funny - everytime you think the debate has moved on and people have started to become better informed, you see a thread like this and realise that for some people this issue is 100% political. No amount of science makes a jot of difference.

On the contrary, it has been an excellent thread,

Not for you, dumbass, you're just too retarded to remember that your idiotic OP got debunked in post #14 of this moronic thread. Let me refresh your faulty memory there, walleyedretard.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASA
09.19.12
(government publication - free to reproduce)

Satellite data reveal how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from Sept. 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow). Sea ice extent maps are derived from data captured by the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager on multiple satellites from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio

The frozen cap of the Arctic Ocean appears to have reached its annual summertime minimum extent and broken a new record low on Sept. 16, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NASA and the NASA-supported NSIDC at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers).

The new record minimum measures almost 300,000 square miles less than the previous lowest extent in the satellite record, set in mid-September 2007, of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers). For comparison, the state of Texas measures around 268,600 square miles.

NSIDC cautioned that, although Sept. 16 seems to be the annual minimum, there's still time for winds to change and compact the ice floes, potentially reducing the sea ice extent further. NASA and NSIDC will release a complete analysis of the 2012 melt season next month, once all data for September are available.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.

"The core of the ice cap is the perennial ice, which normally survived the summer because it was so thick", said Joey Comiso, senior scientist with NASA Goddard. "But because it's been thinning year after year, it has now become vulnerable to melt".

The disappearing older ice gets replaced in winter with thinner seasonal ice that usually melts completely in the summer.

This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."


***

Ummmm, no, it wasn't. But feel free to rant and rave and carry on like a spoiled child (you do that real good!) the fact remains that the low sea ice level is an artifice of a storm and nothing more. The ice is ALLREADY freezing back at a record rate and this year will have an even greater sea ice coverage than the last.

 

[mamooth]

My ENTIRE POST to Foxy was that much of that sea ice IS scattered AND IS measured as tho it's solid, even tho most the space is water.

Who can ever tell what your conspiracy theories are about? I make a best guess, but it's painful to decipher your rambling. I rarely expend the effort, because I've learned it's probably not going to be worth it.

And everyone, please learn how to edit. It's usually not necessary to repeat every word of the preceeding post, and it's never necessary to repeat the idiot pictures. If you want people to read your posts, you need to make them easy to read. People don't want to wade through the crap, so cut out the crap, then quickly state a clear point.

 

[RollingThunder]

and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

Look us in the eye and say you think Skook, Frank, Oddball or Quantrill are behaving like grownups. Just which rationalist is behaving anywhere as badly as that group? None of us are picture-spamming and screaming insults with zero content. Your notable absence of criticism there makes your calls for civility look quite hypocritical.

Flac and Westwall are a bit better, but they go heavy on the handwaving and declaring that anyone who doesn't accept their bizarre logic and unsupported conspiracy theories has to be stupid or dishonest. These are your role models?

Flac says scattered ice isn't measured, which is a just a strange claim. Not being morons, of course scientists measure and account for scattered ice.

Westwall's "it was just a storm, not warming!" is equally senseless, because there have been storms before. A storm wouldn't have gotten that big without mucho open warmer water to feed it, and wouldn't have torn up and melted the ice so much unless the ice was already mostly gone, and unless the water was so unusually warm.

And who on the rational side is trying to hide discussion of algae blooms and ocean acidification, or refusing to look at the past, as you just bizarrely claimed? You lying about us doesn't make us wrong, it just makes you look like a liar.

Lose your "I'm so independent!" charade. You're a right-wing political cultist, and you stink at hiding it. You run from any discussion that threatens your cult's dogma, then you hide behind a childish "Waah! You're all so mean!" sulking act. The grownups are going to call you out when you talk nonsense, and we don't care if that makes you cry about how mean we are.

So for me it is important to know whether humans are significantly changing the global climate or whether what we are experiencing is a naturally occurring climate trend. Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now. Those of us who are reading all the data know that. And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.

You are a liar. That's not an 'insult', that's a fact. Here's the proof. And BTW, you are very obviously not "reading all the data", you lying smarmy halfwit (now, that's an insult and one you richly deserve).

Climate Models: How Good Are They?
By Lisa Moore - scientist in the Climate and Air Program| Bio
Published: July 18, 2007
(excerpts)
...Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Are the Models Untestable?
(excerpts)
Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are "untestable" or "have no predictive ability." Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

* That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
* That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
* That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
* That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
* Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
* That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
* The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
* They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
* They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
* The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
* The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
* The expansion of the Hadley cells.
* The poleward movement of storm tracks.
* The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
* The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
* The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
* That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

References for Predictions and Confirming Observations - (see site)

 

[mamooth]

If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth.

Spare me the martyr act. Your passive-aggressive thing is as bad as what anyone else here is doing.

It is frustrating to me on a thread that merits a more constructive approach.

Yet you're not frustrated at all with the insult-spammers. You only get frustrated when people dare disagree with you or your "side", no matter how civil they are about it.

Westwall offered an excellent opportunity to be objective here.

Why were water temperatures so high?

Why was the ice so thin before the storm, already on a record melt pace?

Why was there so much open warm water to feed the storm?

Why didn't big storms in previous years melt the ice?

Both Westwall and you don't want to discuss such things, and the problems it presents for the "but ... it was just one storm!" theory. I would think that such noble truth seekers would be more interested in discussion.

The Earth has been warming in various degrees since the last ice age

No, it hasn't. That's just plain wrong. The earth warmed fast for the first thousand years after the ice age, then it entered a very slow cooling trend. That's how the orbital factors push the climate. We were still in that slow cooling trend, and we should have still been in that slow cooling trend for thousands of years. Instead, we flipflopped recently to some fast warming.

So for me it is important to know whether humans are significantly changing the global climate or whether what we are experiencing is a naturally occurring climate trend.

Then you should be very interested in exploring why the natural cycle of slow cooling suddenly flipflopped to fast warming. If you look into it, you'll find no natural process can explain it. AGW theory is the only theory out there that explains the observed data.

Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now.

Incorrect. As the previous post talked about, the models do an excellent job of hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a model doesn't have credibility for futurecasting if it can't hindcast.

And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.

That's political conspiracy nonsense. You don't see the AGW side here making political rants.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay

 

[RollingThunder]

A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay

Well, actually.....no, that's not what happened, but unfortunately you, CrazyFruitcake, are just too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to comprehend the facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay

Well, actually.....no, that's not what happened, but unfortunately you, CrazyFruitcake, are just too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to comprehend the facts.

So a 600,000 year data set is not a fact?

Really?

 

[RollingThunder]

A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay

Well, actually.....no, that's not what happened, but unfortunately you, CrazyFruitcake, are just too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to comprehend the facts.

So a 600,000 year data set is not a fact? Really?

No, not really, you're just confused about the point because you're so fricking retarded.

The Vostok ice cores are one data set but no one "discarded" them for "a computer model". That's just your ignorance and stupidity talking. That Vostok data set was supplemented by other, more global data sets. Like these, that you've seen before on this thread but ignored because they contradict your cherished denier cult myths.

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature 484, 87–91 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract)

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere–ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth’s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.


Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming – rather than the other way round


Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. “CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it,” said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. “Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.”

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxide’s role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age,” said Shakun. “Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.”



Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012
(Abstract)

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, actually.....no, that's not what happened, but unfortunately you, CrazyFruitcake, are just too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to comprehend the facts.

So a 600,000 year data set is not a fact? Really?

No, not really, you're just confused about the point because you're so fricking retarded.

The Vostok ice cores are one data set but no one "discarded" them for "a computer model". That's just your ignorance and stupidity talking. That Vostok data set was supplemented by other, more global data sets. Like these, that you've seen before on this thread but ignored because they contradict your cherished denier cult myths.

Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature 484, 87–91 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract)

Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5 °C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate–ecosystem–soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere–ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth’s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.


Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming – rather than the other way round


Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. “CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it,” said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. “Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.”

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxide’s role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age,” said Shakun. “Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.”



Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012
(Abstract)

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

From what I read in the nature article, it looks like Shakun is totally full of shit and dug around to find "Temperature proxies" (Mann tree rings) to show CO2 leading temperature everywhere else in the world except in Antarctica.

To me, that's a joke.

The data set shows a 600,000 years of CO2 lagging temperature but because that falsifies the AGW theory it is discarded for more tree rings.

AGW is a fraud

 

[Foxfyre]

If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth.

Spare me the martyr act. Your passive-aggressive thing is as bad as what anyone else here is doing.

I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive. Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.

It is frustrating to me on a thread that merits a more constructive approach.

Yet you're not frustrated at all with the insult-spammers. You only get frustrated when people dare disagree with you or your "side", no matter how civil they are about it.

You'll have to show how childish behavior on any "side" has been commended by me to make that one stick.

Why were water temperatures so high?

Why was the ice so thin before the storm, already on a record melt pace?

Why was there so much open warm water to feed the storm?

Why didn't big storms in previous years melt the ice?

Both Westwall and you don't want to discuss such things, and the problems it presents for the "but ... it was just one storm!" theory. I would think that such noble truth seekers would be more interested in discussion.

Be careful. If you parse your comments in questions, Rolling Thunder will call you ignorant and stupid. Probably not though so long as you are on his "side".

No, it hasn't. That's just plain wrong. The earth warmed fast for the first thousand years after the ice age, then it entered a very slow cooling trend. That's how the orbital factors push the climate. We were still in that slow cooling trend, and we should have still been in that slow cooling trend for thousands of years. Instead, we flipflopped recently to some fast warming.



Then you should be very interested in exploring why the natural cycle of slow cooling suddenly flipflopped to fast warming. If you look into it, you'll find no natural process can explain it. AGW theory is the only theory out there that explains the observed data.

Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now.

Incorrect. As the previous post talked about, the models do an excellent job of hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a model doesn't have credibility for futurecasting if it can't hindcast.

And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.

That's political conspiracy nonsense. You don't see the AGW side here making political rants.

Sorry, but I took 7th grade science. And have had some coursework since then too. And at least I learned that climate science is evaluated over eons and not in a few dozen or even a few hundred years. Certainly there have been intermittant eras of heating and cooling. If every day or every year was hotter than the last, or every year was cooler than the last, the temperatures everywhere on Earth would quickly be unable to sustain life as we know it. Yet in virtually every single day, there is record cold AND record heat reported somewhere on Earth, and more often than not here in the USA. And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth. Certain the satellite record of arctic ice--a record that is only 34 years old--is hardly a conclusive record of arctic ice melt and formation over much longer periods.

NASA freely admits that the unusual ice melt of this summer was at least mostly due to a savage arctic cyclone. These occur fairly frequently in the grand scheme of things, so with so short a satellite record, we don't know how often that has happened in the past. Put a solid chunk of ice into a bucket and it will take much longer to melt than if you break that same chunk into ice cubes. Those ice cubes will melt even faster if you stir them, and much faster yet if you move them into warmer water. And unlike Anarctica ice, Arctic ice is floating on open water and, when the conditions are conducive, can float into warmer water.

But we sure have reports of severe arctic ice melt in the past.

As for the headline “Arctic ice shrinks to all time low….”, it’s an all time low if you start counting in 1979, the modern satellite era. But, as I’ve shown in another post, Ice Follies and Hiding the Decline, a 1990 report from the IPCC records earlier data which show that in 1974 Arctic sea ice melt was as great or greater than it is this year.

As for the headline “Global warming cited as cause” we see that when the Arctic reaches a minimum sea ice extent, the Antarctic reaches a maximum extent. There is a seesaw effect. That is shown most dramatically this year and in 2007 when the Arctic reached the previous “record” low, and the Antarctic sea ice reached a “record” maximum high extent.

Doug Hoffman discusses this seesaw effect at Resilient Earth. This oscillation seems to be related to natural, solar driven variations.

The basic difference between the Arctic and Antarctic is that the Arctic is mainly ocean surrounded by land, and the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. The Arctic is therefore more subject to solar-driven oscillations such as the Arctic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation which are responsible for changes in ocean currents that can drive ice south toward warmer water or create warmer currents in the Arctic ocean. That, coupled with storms, have a significant effect on Arctic sea ice. As I reported in the post referenced below: the National Snow & Ice Data Center said of this year’s Arctic melt: “Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss.” NSIDC called the storm “The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012″ and noted the storm caused “mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm.” Nothing to do with global warming.

Meanwhile, both continental and sea ice are increasing in Antarctica. “Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice sheet interior north of 81.6-S increased in mass by 45±7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003.” (Source) And a new paper says in part: “Antarctic Peninsula ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855…” (Source). According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1% per decade since the start of the satellite record..

It seems that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent can be explained by natural cycles. Those invoking “global warming” must explain why warming causes Antarctic ice to increase and Arctic ice to decrease.

As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:


And before:
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, …, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. -Washington Post, November 2, 1922.

And before:
“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74̊ and 80̊N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.” -Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153.

Perhaps Mark Twain was right when he said: “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”

UPDATE: NASA now admits that the storm caused most of the melt: “This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.” See statement and video animation here.
The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw - Wry Heat

 

[mamooth]

I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive. Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.

I have no problem with insults. I give them, I get them, it's all fine. I have problems with people who throw insults and then squeal because they get some back. That offends my sense of fair play.

And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth.

You're invoking the UnkownNaturalCyclesFairy. That's not a theory, that's an evasion. Theories give actual reasons for things that happen, and don't just wave their hands around and say "well, you haven't absolutely positively ruled out any possible natural cycle, so your theory must be wrong!". That's nonsense.

Moreover, it's contradicted by the observed data. We directly measure the infrared heat flux out of the atmosphere, and see it decreasing in the C02 absorption bands. Global warming theory predicted that, and it happened. How does the Natural Cycles Theory explain it?

Certain the satellite record of arctic ice--a record that is only 34 years old--is hardly a conclusive record of arcitc ice melt and formation.

Good thing then that careful eyewitness docs go back to the 30s, and sediment core records for some millions of years. Nothing like this has happened for around 400,000 years or so. Just a coincidence that some 400,000 year natural cycle is suddenly taking off now, I suppose.

NASA freely admits that the unusual ice melt of this summer was due to a savage arctic cyclone.

Er, no. NASA said the cyclone helped, but was one factor of many.

Ice levels are going to keep crashing. Next year, when it's worse, even without a cyclone, it will be even tougher to come up with a way to deny the obvious. Air and water temperatures keep rising, and that's melting the ice.

Meanwhile, both continental and sea ice are increasing in Antarctica.

No. The GRACE gravity measurements, and the recent radar measurements, two completely independent systems, both agree land ice is declining all over Antarctica. You're using obsolete data.

As far as sea ice goes, we're seeing a 1%/decade increase in Antarctic sea ice, compared to a 15%/decade decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no comparison.

It seems that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent can be explained by natural cycles.

Logically, that doesn't follow. For example, ozone is a greenhouse gas, we destroyed the ozone over antarctica, so that has a cooling effect on Antarctica. It's not a natural cycle. You can't just assume "natural cycle" because you don't know what's going on.

Those invoking “global warming” must explain why warming causes Antarctic ice to increase and Arctic ice to decrease.

Which has been done. AGW theory explains the observed data, and has successfully predicted many of the changes, which is why it has credibility.

As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:

Anecdotes from whaling vessels don't count as data. We know that winds occasionally open up the ice in funny ways. That doesn't mean all the ice melted.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive. Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.

I have no problem with insults. I give them, I get them, it's all fine. I have problems with people who throw insults and then squeal because they get some back. That offends my sense of fair play.

And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth.

You're invoking the UnkownNaturalCyclesFairy. That's not a theory, that's an evasion. Theories give actual reasons for things that happen, and don't just wave their hands around and say "well, you haven't absolutely positively ruled out any possible natural cycle, so your theory must be wrong!". That's nonsense.

Moreover, it's contradicted by the observed data. We directly measure the infrared heat flux out of the atmosphere, and see it decreasing in the C02 absorption bands. Global warming theory predicted that, and it happened. How does the Natural Cycles Theory explain it?



Good thing then that careful eyewitness docs go back to the 30s, and sediment core records for some millions of years. Nothing like this has happened for around 400,000 years or so. Just a coincidence that some 400,000 year natural cycle is suddenly taking off now, I suppose.



Er, no. NASA said the cyclone helped, but was one factor of many.

Ice levels are going to keep crashing. Next year, when it's worse, even without a cyclone, it will be even tougher to come up with a way to deny the obvious. Air and water temperatures keep rising, and that's melting the ice.



No. The GRACE gravity measurements, and the recent radar measurements, two completely independent systems, both agree land ice is declining all over Antarctica. You're using obsolete data.

As far as sea ice goes, we're seeing a 1%/decade increase in Antarctic sea ice, compared to a 15%/decade decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no comparison.



Logically, that doesn't follow. For example, ozone is a greenhouse gas, we destroyed the ozone over antarctica, so that has a cooling effect on Antarctica. It's not a natural cycle. You can't just assume "natural cycle" because you don't know what's going on.

Those invoking “global warming” must explain why warming causes Antarctic ice to increase and Arctic ice to decrease.

Which has been done. AGW theory explains the observed data, and has successfully predicted many of the changes, which is why it has credibility.

As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:

Anecdotes from whaling vessels don't count as data. We know that winds occasionally open up the ice in funny ways. That doesn't mean all the ice melted.

So conditions reported by whalers on their boats as to what they saw with their own eyes doesn't count, but speculation by people whose funding requires them to create alarm about arctic ice melt does? Have you read the NASA statements? Or are you amending them to fit your own particular beliefs?

Your post suggests you not only do not read your own links, you aren't reading anybody else's posts or links either. But okay. Carry on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again. Last year the deniers posted on how the arctic ice was going to increase this year. Look at how accurate they were.

Now, once again, they are stating that next year the ice will increase dramatically. But give absolutely no reason why this should be so.

Until now, we seem to have a five year step pattern in the decrease of the arctic ice as far as the extant is concerned. However, the volume has been a steady decrease. This latest minimum will put an end that the five year step pattern, because the volume will no longer be able to make up for the single year ice that will melt rapidly as the heat of summer progresses. Between 2015 and 2020, the melt will eleminate the Arctic Ice for part of the summer. Barring a major volcanic eruption. That is the only thing that will change that trajectory.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive. Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.

I have no problem with insults. I give them, I get them, it's all fine. I have problems with people who throw insults and then squeal because they get some back. That offends my sense of fair play.



You're invoking the UnkownNaturalCyclesFairy. That's not a theory, that's an evasion. Theories give actual reasons for things that happen, and don't just wave their hands around and say "well, you haven't absolutely positively ruled out any possible natural cycle, so your theory must be wrong!". That's nonsense.

Moreover, it's contradicted by the observed data. We directly measure the infrared heat flux out of the atmosphere, and see it decreasing in the C02 absorption bands. Global warming theory predicted that, and it happened. How does the Natural Cycles Theory explain it?



Good thing then that careful eyewitness docs go back to the 30s, and sediment core records for some millions of years. Nothing like this has happened for around 400,000 years or so. Just a coincidence that some 400,000 year natural cycle is suddenly taking off now, I suppose.



Er, no. NASA said the cyclone helped, but was one factor of many.

Ice levels are going to keep crashing. Next year, when it's worse, even without a cyclone, it will be even tougher to come up with a way to deny the obvious. Air and water temperatures keep rising, and that's melting the ice.



No. The GRACE gravity measurements, and the recent radar measurements, two completely independent systems, both agree land ice is declining all over Antarctica. You're using obsolete data.

As far as sea ice goes, we're seeing a 1%/decade increase in Antarctic sea ice, compared to a 15%/decade decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no comparison.



Logically, that doesn't follow. For example, ozone is a greenhouse gas, we destroyed the ozone over antarctica, so that has a cooling effect on Antarctica. It's not a natural cycle. You can't just assume "natural cycle" because you don't know what's going on.



Which has been done. AGW theory explains the observed data, and has successfully predicted many of the changes, which is why it has credibility.

As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:

Anecdotes from whaling vessels don't count as data. We know that winds occasionally open up the ice in funny ways. That doesn't mean all the ice melted.

So conditions reported by whalers on their boats as to what they saw with their own eyes doesn't count, but speculation by people whose funding requires them to create alarm about arctic ice melt does? Have you read the NASA statements? Or are you amending them to fit your own particular beliefs?

Your post suggests you not only do not read your own links, you aren't reading anybody else's posts or links either. But okay. Carry on.

Show us a link to a credible source that states the Arctic Ice was anywhere near the minimum we are seeing now in the 1930's. You cannot because no such information exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no problem with insults. I give them, I get them, it's all fine. I have problems with people who throw insults and then squeal because they get some back. That offends my sense of fair play.



You're invoking the UnkownNaturalCyclesFairy. That's not a theory, that's an evasion. Theories give actual reasons for things that happen, and don't just wave their hands around and say "well, you haven't absolutely positively ruled out any possible natural cycle, so your theory must be wrong!". That's nonsense.

Moreover, it's contradicted by the observed data. We directly measure the infrared heat flux out of the atmosphere, and see it decreasing in the C02 absorption bands. Global warming theory predicted that, and it happened. How does the Natural Cycles Theory explain it?



Good thing then that careful eyewitness docs go back to the 30s, and sediment core records for some millions of years. Nothing like this has happened for around 400,000 years or so. Just a coincidence that some 400,000 year natural cycle is suddenly taking off now, I suppose.



Er, no. NASA said the cyclone helped, but was one factor of many.

Ice levels are going to keep crashing. Next year, when it's worse, even without a cyclone, it will be even tougher to come up with a way to deny the obvious. Air and water temperatures keep rising, and that's melting the ice.



No. The GRACE gravity measurements, and the recent radar measurements, two completely independent systems, both agree land ice is declining all over Antarctica. You're using obsolete data.

As far as sea ice goes, we're seeing a 1%/decade increase in Antarctic sea ice, compared to a 15%/decade decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no comparison.



Logically, that doesn't follow. For example, ozone is a greenhouse gas, we destroyed the ozone over antarctica, so that has a cooling effect on Antarctica. It's not a natural cycle. You can't just assume "natural cycle" because you don't know what's going on.



Which has been done. AGW theory explains the observed data, and has successfully predicted many of the changes, which is why it has credibility.



Anecdotes from whaling vessels don't count as data. We know that winds occasionally open up the ice in funny ways. That doesn't mean all the ice melted.

So conditions reported by whalers on their boats as to what they saw with their own eyes doesn't count, but speculation by people whose funding requires them to create alarm about arctic ice melt does? Have you read the NASA statements? Or are you amending them to fit your own particular beliefs?

Your post suggests you not only do not read your own links, you aren't reading anybody else's posts or links either. But okay. Carry on.

Show us a link to a credible source that states the Arctic Ice was anywhere near the minimum we are seeing now in the 1930's. You cannot because no such information exists.

If you have been reading my posts, you had one for 1922. Is that close enough?

 

[Qantrill]

I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's see.. Ship captain logs from whaling vessels, or grad students counting bug parts in mud sediments. WHICH is "more anecdotal" when it comes to Arctic sea ice?

If NASA GISS hadn't been so busy manipulating the Arctic temp record so that they can make the claim of "unprecedented" ice melts, we'd still have thermometer measurements from the late 30s showing Arctic temp increases similiar to today...

 

[Foxfyre]

I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.

I'll have to admit that it does closely parallel a religious cult when you have people that simply won't even look at or consider anything that doesn't fit their set-in-granite beliefs. Most especially when they pronounce any of us who even question their doctrines as heretics or infidels surely headed straight for hell and worthy of every uncomplimentary adjective they can heap on us. Most religious fundamentalists and Atheists are equally dogmatic in their beliefs and become similarly agitated and often hateful when you show any evidence or proposition that might challenge those beliefs.

Certainty and probable are very large words for any scientist worth his or her salt, and you would think people who are truly interested in science and in truth would welcome a possibility that the doomsdayers were incorrect in their calculations.

But there is one certainty. A mind that is closed is damn hard to teach. But calling people names and punishment for their beliefs generally is not going to be persuasive either.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we go again. Last year the deniers posted on how the arctic ice was going to increase this year. Look at how accurate they were.

Now, once again, they are stating that next year the ice will increase dramatically. But give absolutely no reason why this should be so.

Until now, we seem to have a five year step pattern in the decrease of the arctic ice as far as the extant is concerned. However, the volume has been a steady decrease. This latest minimum will put an end that the five year step pattern, because the volume will no longer be able to make up for the single year ice that will melt rapidly as the heat of summer progresses. Between 2015 and 2020, the melt will eleminate the Arctic Ice for part of the summer. Barring a major volcanic eruption. That is the only thing that will change that trajectory.

Yes, a 5 year step pattern > 600,000 years of data.

You rock!