Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

Those previously unkown deposites had been mined since 1906;

Longyearbyen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longyearbyen is the largest settlement and the administrative center of Svalbard, Norway. As of 2008, the town had a population of 2,040. Longyearbyen is located in the valley of Longyeardalen and on the shore of Adventfjorden, a bay of Isfjorden located on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Since 2002, Longyearbyen Community Council has had many of the same responsibilities of a municipality, including utilities, education, cultural facilities, fire department, roads and ports. The town is also the seat of the Governor of Svalbard and is the world's northernmost town.

Known as Longyear City until 1926, the town was established by and named after John Munroe Longyear, whose Arctic Coal Company started coal mining operations in 1906. Operations were taken over by Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (SNSK) in 1916, which still conducts mining. The town was almost completely destroyed by the German Kriegsmarine on 8 August 1943, but was rebuilt after the Second World War. Traditionally, Longyearbyen was a company town, but most mining operations have moved to Sveagruva since the 1990s, while the town has seen a large increase in tourism and research. This has seen the arrival of institutions such as the University Centre in Svalbard, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Svalbard Satellite Station. The community is served by Svalbard Airport, Longyear and Svalbard Church.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

LOL. I don't suffer fools gladly.

By the way, my great-grandfather served in the 11th Illinois Infantry during the Civil War. Kicked traitorious rebel butt from Forth Donaldson to New Orleans.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Arlington. Home of the heros that served this Union well.

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, but I took 7th grade science.

Yeah, we know....too bad you obviously never went any further.

And at least I learned that climate science is evaluated over eons and not in a few dozen or even a few hundred years.

Retarded drivel with no relation to reality. You just reveal how completely ignorant about science you are.

Certaintly(sic) there have been intermittant(sic) eras of heating and cooling. If every day or every year was hotter than the last, the temperatures everywhere on Earth would quickly be unable to sustain life as we know it.

Well, duh!!! You have a talent for stating the obvious as if nobody had ever thought of it before. The mark of a true retard.

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.

If the world wasn't warming rapidly, the number of record hot days would be approximately equal to the number of record cold days, statistically.

Instead....

Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
November 12, 2009
(excerpts)
BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. "Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting." If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves. A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.

The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change. "If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs." The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s. Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two

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 arcitc ice melt and formation.

Good thing the climate scientists use far more data than just the (actually quite adequate) satellite observations. Data that you are apparently far too ignorant to know about.

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

LIAR! No they don't. That storm only lasted a few days and the only reason it moved so much ice is that the ice was already thin and on the verge of melting anyway. Here's what the scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center have to say about it.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
NSIDC
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.

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.

You mean you don't know how often but that is because you are an ignorant and very clueless retard. Scientists have a lot of data on the history of the polar ice and they know a lot more than you imagine that they do.

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

There is no evidence indicating that there have been any melt downs as severe as the current one for at least the last 6000 years and that one happened very, very slowly.

But of course, instead of looking at the actual scientific studies, denier cult nutjobs like you always choose to go with the error filled rants of some non-climate scientist and professional denier writing an opinion piece in a small newpaper. LOLOLOL......sooooo retarded....

Just for fun I'll also debunk the lies and misinformation in your little denier cult propaganda piece.

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.

This moron hasn't "shown" diddlysquat, torture. I'd tell him to quit quoting nonsense and pseudo-science from denier cult blogs or books that only impresses retards like yourself. Besides which, it wouldn't matter at all to the theory of anthropogenic global warming if there had been a bigger melt in 1974 than 1979. Global warming has been happening for over a century and really strongly since the 1970's, you clueless imbecile.

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.

Ah, not too surprisingly for a denier cult retard like you, you've latched onto the latest denier cult myth, just as phony as the rest of them. There is no "seesaw effect". The Arctic has lost over half the sea ice extent that was there in the 1980's and the rate of sea ice extent loss is over 15% per decade and the rate of ice volume loss is even higher, while over the same time frame Antarctica has seen a slightly growing maximum sea ice extent that is happening at a rate of only 1% per decade. Antarctic sea ice melts back to almost zero every southern hemisphere summer and reforms every winter. This years Antarctic sea ice extent was also not a record at the time Taylor's article appeared in Forbes (except for that one particular day). Overall sea ice extent there has been higher over 8 times in the last dozen years. It is definitely not in some kind of mystical balance with the north polar ice. Also, as the sea ice around Antarctica grows very, very slightly, the land based ice sheets on Antarctica are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. The volume of sea ice is a miniscule fraction of the volume of the ice in the Antarctic ice sheets and ice shelves.

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.

Another lie. The scientists say the Arctic ice loss is mainly being driven by global warming.

This denier dufus is quoting the NSIDC as if they support his nonsense. How about looking at the rest of the article he's quoting.

A summer storm in the Arctic
NSIDC
August 14, 2012
(free to reproduce - see copyright and use statement at end)
Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. 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. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This is 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. Low extent for the Arctic as a whole is driven by extensive open water on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, the Beaufort Sea, and—due to rapid ice loss over the past two weeks—the East Siberian Sea. Ice is near its normal (1979 to 2000) extent only off the northeastern Greenland coast. Ice near the coast in eastern Siberia continues to block sections of the Northern Sea Route. The western entrance to the Northwest Passage via McClure Strait remains blocked.

Conditions in context

The average pace of ice loss since late June has been rapid at just over 100,000 square kilometers (38,000 square miles) per day. However, this pace nearly doubled for a few days in early August during a major Arctic cyclonic storm, discussed below. Unlike the summer of 2007 when a persistent pattern of high pressure was present over the central Arctic Ocean and a pattern of low pressure was over the northern Eurasian coast, the summer of 2012 has been characteried by variable conditions. Air tempertures at the 925 hPa level (about 3000 feet above the ocean surface) of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2012 average have been the rule from central Greenland, northern Canada, and Alaska northward into the central Arctic Ocean. Cooler than average conditions (1 to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) were observed in a small region of eastern Siberia extending into the East Siberian Sea, helping explain the persistence of low concentration ice in this region through early August.

The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012

A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.

Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.

However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.

Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

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).

Bullshit.

Is Antarctica Melting?
NASA
01.12.10

Graph of Antartic Mass Variation since 2002The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002.

Polar Ice Loss Is Accelerating, Scientists Say
The New York Times
March 11, 2011
(excerpts)
On Wednesday, a research team led by a NASA scientist unveiled a new study that is sure to stir debate on the topic. The paper concludes that ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, and that the ice sheets’ impact on the rise in sea levels in the first half of the 21st century will be substantially higher than previous studies had projected. The increasing ice loss means that, for the first time, Greenland and Antarctica appear to be adding more to sea-level rise than the world’s other reserves of ice — primarily mountain glaciers, which are also melting because of rising temperatures. In 2006 alone, the study estimated that the two ice sheets lost roughly 475 billion metric tons of ice. If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

The study’s findings that ice loss in Greenland has accelerated strikingly over the last two decades are largely in line with the conclusions of other researchers. But the estimate that Antarctica is also rapidly shedding ice was challenged by other scientists, who believe the continent’s ice sheet remains largely in balance. “We think that their estimate of the loss from Antarctica is much too large,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Rignot said he stood by his conclusions about Antarctica, which were derived from data from two independent measurement techniques dating back 20 years.

According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1% per decade since the start of the satellite record..

This is about the only honest thing this denier cult dingbat says in his article. Too bad it debunks his claim of a Arctic/Antarctic 'see-saw effect'. The Arctic is losing sea ice extent at a rate of about fifteen and a half percent per decade and Antarctica is gaining sea ice extent at a rate of only 1% per decade. LOL. What a retarded liar.

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

Another lie, entirely unsupported by the facts. But it is a popular denier cult myth.

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

They have but this guy is too brainwashed and politically motivated to bother checking and finding out.

Here is a very good article that discusses this issue of Antarctic sea ice and it has some specific info to answer this denier cultist's question.

Forget the Melting Arctic, Sea Ice in Antarctica is Growing!
Published: September 30th, 2012
(excerpts)

Trends in Antarctic sea ice cover. Credit: Cryosphere Today.

Still, if the planet is warming, how can the sea ice be expanding in the waters surrounding Antarctica in the first place? Keeping in mind that it isn’t expanding by much, scientists offer several possible explanations. One is that there’s been more precipitation in recent decades (which itself could well be due to global warming). That puts a cap of relatively fresh water atop the denser, saltier water below, and in winter, when that top layer cools, it stays on top rather than mixing with the warmer water underneath, thus encouraging the growth of ice. Another factor may be the ozone hole that opens up at this time every year over the South Pole. Ozone loss tends to cool the upper atmosphere — an effect that percolates down to the surface. Still another factor is purely natural climate variation, which is still happening even though manmade global warming has a growing influence on every aspect of the Earth’s climate system with every passing decade.

In any case, climate scientists have long expected that the Arctic would warm up faster than the Antarctic. After all, the former is an ocean surrounded by land, while the latter is land surrounded by ocean. Wind patterns, weather systems and ocean currents behave differently at the two poles. And because the coldest part of the Antarctic is land, the ice there has been able to accumulate into a giant ice cube the size of a continent and up to two miles thick — which tends to hold back local warming considerably. By the second half of the century, however, climatologists say that the human warming signal will become more apparent, and Antarctic sea ice will begin to follow its Arctic cousin in a downward spiral. That, in turn, could speed up melting of the all-important Antarctic land ice, thereby raising global sea levels.

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

Anecdotal rubbish. There is a great deal of solid scientific evidence indicating that the Arctic sea ice extent and volume have not been this low in the last 6000 years.

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.
ttp://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/09/24/the-arctic-antarctic-seesaw/]The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw - Wry Heat

Another lie. NASA did not "admit that the storm caused most of the melt". Here's the NASA article that this denier cult propagandist cites in his newspaper opinion piece and here's what NASA actually said about the storm. The Arctic ice was melting at an unusually high rate all summer and the sea ice extent was already lower than the 2007 low when this storm formed. The storm only lasted for 4 or 5 days. Scientist say that the storm "played a role" in the unusually high level of ice loss this year but they don't "admit" that it was the main cause as this liar claims. He must be used to fooling people who are too lazy and stupid to check up on his fraudulent claims.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASAArctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent... of the Arctic sea ice on September 16, 2012.
09.19.12
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."

 

[skookerasbil]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, but I took 7th grade science.

Yeah, we know....too bad you obviously never went any further.










Retarded drivel with no relation to reality. You just reveal how completely ignorant about science you are.






Well, duh!!! You have a talent for stating the obvious as if nobody had ever thought of it before. The mark of a true retard.







If the world wasn't warming rapidly, the number of record hot days would be approximately equal to the number of record cold days, statistically.

Instead....

Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
November 12, 2009
(excerpts)
BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. "Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting." If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves. A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.

The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change. "If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs." The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s. Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two
















Good thing the climate scientists use far more data than just the (actually quite adequate) satellite observations. Data that you are apparently far too ignorant to know about.








LIAR! No they don't. That storm only lasted a few days and the only reason it moved so much ice is that the ice was already thin and on the verge of melting anyway. Here's what the scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center have to say about it.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
NSIDC
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.







You mean you don't know how often but that is because you are an ignorant and very clueless retard. Scientists have a lot of data on the history of the polar ice and they know a lot more than you imagine that they do.





There is no evidence indicating that there have been any melt downs as severe as the current one for at least the last 6000 years and that one happened very, very slowly.

But of course, instead of looking at the actual scientific studies, denier cult nutjobs like you always choose to go with the error filled rants of some non-climate scientist and professional denier writing an opinion piece in a small newpaper. LOLOLOL......sooooo retarded....

Just for fun I'll also debunk the lies and misinformation in your little denier cult propaganda piece.


This moron hasn't "shown" diddlysquat, torture. I'd tell him to quit quoting nonsense and pseudo-science from denier cult blogs or books that only impresses retards like yourself. Besides which, it wouldn't matter at all to the theory of anthropogenic global warming if there had been a bigger melt in 1974 than 1979. Global warming has been happening for over a century and really strongly since the 1970's, you clueless imbecile.






Ah, not too surprisingly for a denier cult retard like you, you've latched onto the latest denier cult myth, just as phony as the rest of them. There is no "seesaw effect". The Arctic has lost over half the sea ice extent that was there in the 1980's and the rate of sea ice extent loss is over 15% per decade and the rate of ice volume loss is even higher, while over the same time frame Antarctica has seen a slightly growing maximum sea ice extent that is happening at a rate of only 1% per decade. Antarctic sea ice melts back to almost zero every southern hemisphere summer and reforms every winter. This years Antarctic sea ice extent was also not a record at the time Taylor's article appeared in Forbes (except for that one particular day). Overall sea ice extent there has been higher over 8 times in the last dozen years. It is definitely not in some kind of mystical balance with the north polar ice. Also, as the sea ice around Antarctica grows very, very slightly, the land based ice sheets on Antarctica are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. The volume of sea ice is a miniscule fraction of the volume of the ice in the Antarctic ice sheets and ice shelves.









Another lie. The scientists say the Arctic ice loss is mainly being driven by global warming.

This denier dufus is quoting the NSIDC as if they support his nonsense. How about looking at the rest of the article he's quoting.

A summer storm in the Arctic
NSIDC
August 14, 2012
(free to reproduce - see copyright and use statement at end)
Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. 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. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This is 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. Low extent for the Arctic as a whole is driven by extensive open water on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, the Beaufort Sea, and—due to rapid ice loss over the past two weeks—the East Siberian Sea. Ice is near its normal (1979 to 2000) extent only off the northeastern Greenland coast. Ice near the coast in eastern Siberia continues to block sections of the Northern Sea Route. The western entrance to the Northwest Passage via McClure Strait remains blocked.

Conditions in context

The average pace of ice loss since late June has been rapid at just over 100,000 square kilometers (38,000 square miles) per day. However, this pace nearly doubled for a few days in early August during a major Arctic cyclonic storm, discussed below. Unlike the summer of 2007 when a persistent pattern of high pressure was present over the central Arctic Ocean and a pattern of low pressure was over the northern Eurasian coast, the summer of 2012 has been characteried by variable conditions. Air tempertures at the 925 hPa level (about 3000 feet above the ocean surface) of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2012 average have been the rule from central Greenland, northern Canada, and Alaska northward into the central Arctic Ocean. Cooler than average conditions (1 to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) were observed in a small region of eastern Siberia extending into the East Siberian Sea, helping explain the persistence of low concentration ice in this region through early August.

The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012

A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.

Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.

However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.

Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.





Bullshit.

Is Antarctica Melting?
NASA
01.12.10

Graph of Antartic Mass Variation since 2002The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002.

Polar Ice Loss Is Accelerating, Scientists Say
The New York Times
March 11, 2011
(excerpts)
On Wednesday, a research team led by a NASA scientist unveiled a new study that is sure to stir debate on the topic. The paper concludes that ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, and that the ice sheets’ impact on the rise in sea levels in the first half of the 21st century will be substantially higher than previous studies had projected. The increasing ice loss means that, for the first time, Greenland and Antarctica appear to be adding more to sea-level rise than the world’s other reserves of ice — primarily mountain glaciers, which are also melting because of rising temperatures. In 2006 alone, the study estimated that the two ice sheets lost roughly 475 billion metric tons of ice. If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

The study’s findings that ice loss in Greenland has accelerated strikingly over the last two decades are largely in line with the conclusions of other researchers. But the estimate that Antarctica is also rapidly shedding ice was challenged by other scientists, who believe the continent’s ice sheet remains largely in balance. “We think that their estimate of the loss from Antarctica is much too large,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Rignot said he stood by his conclusions about Antarctica, which were derived from data from two independent measurement techniques dating back 20 years.





This is about the only honest thing this denier cult dingbat says in his article. Too bad it debunks his claim of a Arctic/Antarctic 'see-saw effect'. The Arctic is losing sea ice extent at a rate of about fifteen and a half percent per decade and Antarctica is gaining sea ice extent at a rate of only 1% per decade. LOL. What a retarded liar.







Another lie, entirely unsupported by the facts. But it is a popular denier cult myth.






They have but this guy is too brainwashed and politically motivated to bother checking and finding out.

Here is a very good article that discusses this issue of Antarctic sea ice and it has some specific info to answer this denier cultist's question.

Forget the Melting Arctic, Sea Ice in Antarctica is Growing!
Published: September 30th, 2012
(excerpts)

Trends in Antarctic sea ice cover. Credit: Cryosphere Today.

Still, if the planet is warming, how can the sea ice be expanding in the waters surrounding Antarctica in the first place? Keeping in mind that it isn’t expanding by much, scientists offer several possible explanations. One is that there’s been more precipitation in recent decades (which itself could well be due to global warming). That puts a cap of relatively fresh water atop the denser, saltier water below, and in winter, when that top layer cools, it stays on top rather than mixing with the warmer water underneath, thus encouraging the growth of ice. Another factor may be the ozone hole that opens up at this time every year over the South Pole. Ozone loss tends to cool the upper atmosphere — an effect that percolates down to the surface. Still another factor is purely natural climate variation, which is still happening even though manmade global warming has a growing influence on every aspect of the Earth’s climate system with every passing decade.

In any case, climate scientists have long expected that the Arctic would warm up faster than the Antarctic. After all, the former is an ocean surrounded by land, while the latter is land surrounded by ocean. Wind patterns, weather systems and ocean currents behave differently at the two poles. And because the coldest part of the Antarctic is land, the ice there has been able to accumulate into a giant ice cube the size of a continent and up to two miles thick — which tends to hold back local warming considerably. By the second half of the century, however, climatologists say that the human warming signal will become more apparent, and Antarctic sea ice will begin to follow its Arctic cousin in a downward spiral. That, in turn, could speed up melting of the all-important Antarctic land ice, thereby raising global sea levels.

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

Anecdotal rubbish. There is a great deal of solid scientific evidence indicating that the Arctic sea ice extent and volume have not been this low in the last 6000 years.

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.
ttp://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/09/24/the-arctic-antarctic-seesaw/]The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw - Wry Heat

Another lie. NASA did not "admit that the storm caused most of the melt". Here's the NASA article that this denier cult propagandist cites in his newspaper opinion piece and here's what NASA actually said about the storm. The Arctic ice was melting at an unusually high rate all summer and the sea ice extent was already lower than the 2007 low when this storm formed. The storm only lasted for 4 or 5 days. Scientist say that the storm "played a role" in the unusually high level of ice loss this year but they don't "admit" that it was the main cause as this liar claims. He must be used to fooling people who are too lazy and stupid to check up on his fraudulent claims.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASAArctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent... of the Arctic sea ice on September 16, 2012.
09.19.12
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."

s0n........I dont think there is enough information in this post here!!!


LOL.......who cant love the bitter alarmists going to greater and greater lengths...........falling all over themselves actually.............to present their case.

But guess what?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[konradv]

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.

No one's saying there haven't been climate swings in the past. The point you seem to be missing is the time course of this one. Instead of thousands to tens of thousands of years, we're talking hundreds. I wish the skeptics would explain that one.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

You can always spot a hard core denier cult crazy. They ask some ignorant question that they imagine to be challenging to the facts about AGW and then after the question is answered and their misconceptions are debunked, they turn right around and repeat the exact same bullshit all over again. Quantumofstupidity made these same claims earlier in this thread and got debunked then in post #51 so now he is back repeating it again.

I love this thread.

Now would some...any...just one of you chicken littleshits explain to us global warming doubters just why this GD ice melted (see YouTube below), then refroze, then melted again...twice in the last 100,000 years (last time 25,000 years ago) when there were NO AIRPLANES, NO AUTOMOBILES, NO SMOKE BELCHING FACTORIES, NO SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO FARTING DINOSAURS, NO WORLD WARS AND NO PRIEUSes running around on top of the icecap?

OH YEAH...NO OIL COMPANIES.

Your attention to this matter will be the object of much derision. Thank You!

The Last Ice Age (120 000 years ago to Modern) - YouTube

If you weren't such an ignorant half-wit, you'd know how to find such information for yourself, Quanto. But hey, always glad to help out the ignorant and confused with some solid facts. Natural factors, mostly orbital cycles, caused the previous cycles of glaciation and inter-glacial warm periods. Un-natural, human caused factors (burning fossil fuels, deforestation) are causing the current abrupt warming trend.

Quaternary glaciation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Causes

The cause of glaciation may be related to several simultaneously occurring factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents.[4]

Astronomical cycles

The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century.[5] Later, Milutin Milanković, a Serbian geophysicist, elaborated on the theory and calculated these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles known as Milankovitch cycles.[6] They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties. Changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years.[7] The inclination, or tilt, of Earth's axis varies periodically between 22° and 24.5°.[7] (The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures.) Changes in the tilt occur in a cycle 41,000 years long.[7] Precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles on Earth's spin axis, complete every 21,700 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the amount of solar heat Earth receives. These cycles within cycles predict that during maximum glacial advances, winter and summer temperatures are lower. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up. Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately.[8] Studies of deep-sea cores, and the fossils contained in them indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.

A problem with the theory is that the astronomical cycles have been in existence for billions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Actually, astronomical cycles perfectly explain glacial and interglacial periods, and their transitions, inside an ice age. Other factors such as the position of continents and the effects this has on the earth's oceanic currents, or long term fluctuations inside the core of the sun must also be involved that caused Earth's temperature to drop below a critical threshold and thus initiate the ice age in the first place. Once that occurs, Milankovitch cycles will act to force the planet in and out of glacial periods. One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 may not be the primary cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[10]

 

[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.

LOL. I don't suffer fools gladly.

By the way, my great-grandfather served in the 11th Illinois Infantry during the Civil War. Kicked traitorious rebel butt from Forth Donaldson to New Orleans.

A weather based PONZI SCHEME...and good for your great grandfather. You should be proud of him. Did he survive?...by the way I was born in Illinois. Southern half is rather nice...the closer one gets to Chicago the more intense the stench. As for suffering fools...

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt.”
― Leah Wilson, The Girl Who Was on Fire: Your Favorite Authors on Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games Trilogy

I know I'm a doubter...which one are you?

 

[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.

No one's saying there haven't been climate swings in the past. The point you seem to be missing is the time course of this one. Instead of thousands to tens of thousands of years, we're talking hundreds. I wish the skeptics would explain that one.

Having lived 70 of the last 100 years, I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. Except the highest temperature here in the St. Louis area THIS year was 108° compared to the hottest on record...1954 at 115° and we didn't even have a window fan...much less air conditioning. Many people went to Forest Park and slept under the trees. Of course one would be taking their lives in their hands doing that in 2012.

I bet those 100 year increments are going to be ALL OVER THE GRAPH. What cha going to do when the USA and Canada ice over again in another 25/26 thousand years?

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

Those previously unkown deposites had been mined since 1906;

Longyearbyen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longyearbyen is the largest settlement and the administrative center of Svalbard, Norway. As of 2008, the town had a population of 2,040. Longyearbyen is located in the valley of Longyeardalen and on the shore of Adventfjorden, a bay of Isfjorden located on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Since 2002, Longyearbyen Community Council has had many of the same responsibilities of a municipality, including utilities, education, cultural facilities, fire department, roads and ports. The town is also the seat of the Governor of Svalbard and is the world's northernmost town.

Known as Longyear City until 1926, the town was established by and named after John Munroe Longyear, whose Arctic Coal Company started coal mining operations in 1906. Operations were taken over by Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (SNSK) in 1916, which still conducts mining. The town was almost completely destroyed by the German Kriegsmarine on 8 August 1943, but was rebuilt after the Second World War. Traditionally, Longyearbyen was a company town, but most mining operations have moved to Sveagruva since the 1990s, while the town has seen a large increase in tourism and research. This has seen the arrival of institutions such as the University Centre in Svalbard, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Svalbard Satellite Station. The community is served by Svalbard Airport, Longyear and Svalbard Church.

Your reading comprehension sucks OldieRocks.. Here's the press report..

Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of HITHERTO UNKNOWN coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay -- deposits of VAST extent AND SUPERIOR QUALITY. This is regarded of first importance, AS SO FAR MOST OF THE COAL MINED by the Norwegians companies on those islands has not been of the BEST QUALITY..

You've debunked NOTHING there. And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..


THIS --- is AFTER a dozen "fiddles" to lower the 30s temps and raise the 60s temps..

It was damn balmy up there in the 30s.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

Those previously unkown deposites had been mined since 1906;

Longyearbyen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longyearbyen is the largest settlement and the administrative center of Svalbard, Norway. As of 2008, the town had a population of 2,040. Longyearbyen is located in the valley of Longyeardalen and on the shore of Adventfjorden, a bay of Isfjorden located on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Since 2002, Longyearbyen Community Council has had many of the same responsibilities of a municipality, including utilities, education, cultural facilities, fire department, roads and ports. The town is also the seat of the Governor of Svalbard and is the world's northernmost town.

Known as Longyear City until 1926, the town was established by and named after John Munroe Longyear, whose Arctic Coal Company started coal mining operations in 1906. Operations were taken over by Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (SNSK) in 1916, which still conducts mining. The town was almost completely destroyed by the German Kriegsmarine on 8 August 1943, but was rebuilt after the Second World War. Traditionally, Longyearbyen was a company town, but most mining operations have moved to Sveagruva since the 1990s, while the town has seen a large increase in tourism and research. This has seen the arrival of institutions such as the University Centre in Svalbard, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Svalbard Satellite Station. The community is served by Svalbard Airport, Longyear and Svalbard Church.

Your reading comprehension sucks OldieRocks.. Here's the press report..

Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of HITHERTO UNKNOWN coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay -- deposits of VAST extent AND SUPERIOR QUALITY. This is regarded of first importance, AS SO FAR MOST OF THE COAL MINED by the Norwegians companies on those islands has not been of the BEST QUALITY..

You've debunked NOTHING there. And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..


THIS --- is AFTER a dozen "fiddles" to lower the 30s temps and raise the 60s temps..

It was damn balmy up there in the 30s.....

So, if the bizzaro notion that CO2 drives the climate were correct when the ice melted in the 20's it should have stayed melted and then melted even more. There should be no ice at all by now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

Those previously unkown deposites had been mined since 1906;

Longyearbyen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longyearbyen is the largest settlement and the administrative center of Svalbard, Norway. As of 2008, the town had a population of 2,040. Longyearbyen is located in the valley of Longyeardalen and on the shore of Adventfjorden, a bay of Isfjorden located on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Since 2002, Longyearbyen Community Council has had many of the same responsibilities of a municipality, including utilities, education, cultural facilities, fire department, roads and ports. The town is also the seat of the Governor of Svalbard and is the world's northernmost town.

Known as Longyear City until 1926, the town was established by and named after John Munroe Longyear, whose Arctic Coal Company started coal mining operations in 1906. Operations were taken over by Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (SNSK) in 1916, which still conducts mining. The town was almost completely destroyed by the German Kriegsmarine on 8 August 1943, but was rebuilt after the Second World War. Traditionally, Longyearbyen was a company town, but most mining operations have moved to Sveagruva since the 1990s, while the town has seen a large increase in tourism and research. This has seen the arrival of institutions such as the University Centre in Svalbard, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Svalbard Satellite Station. The community is served by Svalbard Airport, Longyear and Svalbard Church.

Your reading comprehension sucks OldieRocks.. Here's the press report..

Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of HITHERTO UNKNOWN coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay -- deposits of VAST extent AND SUPERIOR QUALITY. This is regarded of first importance, AS SO FAR MOST OF THE COAL MINED by the Norwegians companies on those islands has not been of the BEST QUALITY..

You've debunked NOTHING there. And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..


THIS --- is AFTER a dozen "fiddles" to lower the 30s temps and raise the 60s temps..

It was damn balmy up there in the 30s.....

So, if the bizzaro notion that CO2 drives the climate were correct when the ice melted in the 20's it should have stayed melted and then melted even more. There should be no ice at all by now.

WOWIE ZOWIE !!! YA think??? Actually -- ironically, the warmers have to call the warming in the 30s "NATURAL" -- because not enough CO2 has been spewed by then to create that kind of warming.. That's why NASA GISS is so frantic to alter the historical Arctic temp records and PURGE any instance of previous warming (MedWPeriod) from the whole human experience.

This whole concept of getting your panties tangled over a single STUPID number like "Annual Mean Surface temperature" is truly weird and random.. ONE NUMBER doesn't tell you much about climate.. But YET -- a problem this complex --- reduced to ONE NUMBER --- is what the cult Priests need to convert the masses..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But they discard 600,000 consecutive years of data showing CO2 is a lazy, laggard cousin to changes in temperature.... temperature drags CO2 behind it like a dog on a leash

 

[RollingThunder]

Having lived 70 of the last 100 years, I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. Except the highest temperature here in the St. Louis area THIS year was 108° compared to the hottest on record...1954 at 115°

Yessireebob, that is quite a refutation of over a century of world temperature records there, Quanto. You haven't felt it get any warmer where you are standing.....

LOLOLOLOLOL......you are sooooo funny.

Since they started keeping organized temperature records in the 1860's, there has been one day hotter than this 108° record set this last June and that day was in July, a month that is traditionally hotter than June.

Historic heat wave continues in St. Louis area

KMOV - St. Louis
June 28, 2012
(excerpts)
The 4Warn Storm Team says Thursday afternoon the high temperature reached 108 degrees! More than just the initial “Wow!” factor, that number holds some historical importance. The hottest June 28 temperature ever recorded in St. Louis before Thursday was 104 degrees, which was set in 1952. Even more impressive is the fact that St. Louis had never topped 105 degrees in June, which means Thursday is the hottest June day in recorded St. Louis history.

The 108-degree high was also the hottest day in St. Louis since July, 1954.

I bet those 100 year increments are going to be ALL OVER THE GRAPH. What cha going to do when the USA and Canada ice over again in another 25/26 thousand years?

Ignorant twaddle. You quite obviously have no clue as to what is going to happen in the next hundred years and nobody in their right mind is worrying about "what cha going to do" in "another 25/26 thousand years".

What are you going to do, bozo, when, in the next decade or so, global warming/climate change created crop failures around the globe drive up food prices to three or four times what they are now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers are a cult, see above.

 

[RollingThunder]

And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..

Just more of your ignorant denier cult myths, fecalhead. The actual evidence indicates that there haven't been any melt backs like this for the last 6 to 8 thousand years.

You'll take any scrap of whatever you can find that supports your pre-formed and unmovable position that is based only on the lies and misinformation that you have been fed by the fossil fuel industry propagandists, not on any actual scientific evidence.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits a New Record Low
Popular Mechanics
August 27, 2012
(excerpts)

Scientists have several ways to puzzle out an extended history of Arctic Sea ice before 1979. They can use limited satellite data from the 1960s, along with operational ice charts created to support shipping. These date back to the early 1950s for the entire Arctic, and to the 1920s and 30s for Canadian and Russian waters.

To look still further back in time, researchers consult historical surface temperature readings, written records, and a growing collection of sediment cores taken from the seafloor. During the Medieval Warming Period of the 10th to 12th centuries, the North Atlantic was nearly as warm as it is today. According to NSIDC scientist Walt Meier, however, scientists estimate that Arctic Sea ice last reached the current low level during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, 8000 to 10,000 years ago, when temperatures rose sharply after the end of the most recent ice age.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your reading comprehension sucks OldieRocks.. Here's the press report..

Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of HITHERTO UNKNOWN coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay -- deposits of VAST extent AND SUPERIOR QUALITY. This is regarded of first importance, AS SO FAR MOST OF THE COAL MINED by the Norwegians companies on those islands has not been of the BEST QUALITY..

You've debunked NOTHING there. And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..


THIS --- is AFTER a dozen "fiddles" to lower the 30s temps and raise the 60s temps..

It was damn balmy up there in the 30s.....

So, if the bizzaro notion that CO2 drives the climate were correct when the ice melted in the 20's it should have stayed melted and then melted even more. There should be no ice at all by now.

WOWIE ZOWIE !!! YA think??? Actually -- ironically, the warmers have to call the warming in the 30s "NATURAL" -- because not enough CO2 has been spewed by then to create that kind of warming.. That's why NASA GISS is so frantic to alter the historical Arctic temp records and PURGE any instance of previous warming (MedWPeriod) from the whole human experience.

This whole concept of getting your panties tangled over a single STUPID number like "Annual Mean Surface temperature" is truly weird and random.. ONE NUMBER doesn't tell you much about climate.. But YET -- a problem this complex --- reduced to ONE NUMBER --- is what the cult Priests need to convert the masses..

HOLY COW.. Did I just "quote" myself? Of course I did --- because TinkerBelle obviously didn't SEE the actual temp chart from 65Deg N showing how the temps in the 30s compare to today.. I've got 5 or 7 more if you like. And a ships captain log is a lot better thermometer and ice spotter than a dead bug part in a mud sediment..

And you got ------- "Popular Mechanics"?????
Great if you want to make an impromptu lift for replacing the engine on your old Impala...
At least we got an admission that the N. Atlantic temps were comparably warm to today during the MWPeriod that you deny.. But hell no --- no ice melted then either..

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some actual facts on this topic.

Modern Day Climate Change
(excerpts)
Kauffman et al. (2009) also shows that the Arctic was experiencing long-term cooling in the past 2000 years according to Milankovitch cycles until very recently. Figure 7.6 reveals this trend shift:

Figure 7.6: Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling (Kaufmann et al. modified by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research)

Kaufmann et al. summarizes their study:

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60 oN covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.​

Figure 7.8: Current Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from satellite measurements

Sea ice extent is just part of the picture. Sea ice thickness has also been measured by submarine and ICESat satellite measurement.

Figure 7.9 (Rothrock, et al., 1999) shows sea ice thickness has substantially declined. Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season in the Arctic has decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Figure 7.9: Mean sea ice draft: Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft for 1958 to 1997.

Since 2004 and there has been a dramatic decrease in thickness according to NASA's press release, NASA Satellite Reveals Dramatic Arctic Ice Thinning dated July, 2009. Some excerpts:

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area.

During the study period, the relative contributions of the two ice types to the total volume of the Arctic's ice cover were reversed. In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice, with 38 percent stored in first-year seasonal ice. By 2008, 68 percent of the total ice volume was first-year ice, with 32 percent multi-year ice.​

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)