Another low ice year for the Arctic

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png


The result;
Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3.7 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Image 5 of 9 (play slideshow) Download

Figure3-1.png


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

age 3 of 6 (play slideshow) Download

N_iqr_timeseries.png


We have about a month and a half to make up for the presently low ice in the Arctic.
 
Don't hold your breath!
Among the many positive feedback loops in the GW tsunami, is the release (from ice) of much of the Arctic Ocean, allowing more oil exploration and exploitation.
We're fucked!
 
And when we start paying the price even more than we did last year, the 'Conservatives' will blame the scientists for not informing them of the dangers. And the suckers out there will believe those lies.
 
gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png


The result;
Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3.7 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Image 5 of 9 (play slideshow) Download

Figure3-1.png


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

age 3 of 6 (play slideshow) Download

N_iqr_timeseries.png


We have about a month and a half to make up for the presently low ice in the Arctic.





Wow, lookey here...yet another failed prediction. How many failures are you going to give them olfraud? How many silly predictions does it take before you admit they are nothing but charlatans.......

Did you know that psychics have a better predictive rate than these clowns?


‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’


Scientist Peter Wadhams believes the summer ice cover at the north pole is about to disappear, triggering even more rapid global warming
‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’
 
nobody cares about the arctic ice...........

Well maybe they would but years ago, the climate crusaders lobbed SCUD after SCUD about the consequences that haven't added up to dick. Most of the public tuned out many years ago now.......the whole topic exists in few places in 2018.....mostly just the nether-regions of the intanets, Hollywood and academia. Might as well be having a discussion of the wonder of the Rubiks cube:eusa_dance::eusa_dance:

Think about it.........been hearing about the "ice" for almost 30 years now and next year, we're going to start drilling the fuck out of all coastal US waters and in Alaska. I couldn't be laughing any harder!! Nobody is caring about the ice.........
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
 
Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?

When I point out that you're lying about our supposed "predictions", doubling down on the lie is poor strategy.

If you're not lying, just point out where the IPCC made such a prediction, or NASA, or NOAA, or where I made ever such a prediction. After all, I can point out where those people made very different predictions from what you're claiming.

If you are lying, just snarl and evade.
 
gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png


Another low ice year for the Arctic


GOOD! GOOD! Funny that your map above shows a warm anomaly over eastern USA where we have been seeing record cold! Just the other week, it showed the exact opposite. Meantime, Rocky, you DO know that the poles are not necessarily SUPPOSED to be covered in ice all of the time, right? The fact that the poles are currently covered in snow is just part of the present glaciating period we are living in. That ice is constantly in flux, advancing and retreating at the whims of solar activity, orbital motions, ocean currents and other things. We are presently in the coolest period we have seen in 8200 years except for the Little Ice Age that occurred hundreds of years ago. The Great Lie of "Climate Change" is that not only is it the nature of climate to CHANGE, but you are no more able to fix the ice at the poles or the advancements of cold and warm anomalies with your proposed draconian economic actions than I can change the colour of the Sun.
 
Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?

When I point out that you're lying about our supposed "predictions", doubling down on the lie is poor strategy.

If you're not lying, just point out where the IPCC made such a prediction, or NASA, or NOAA, or where I made ever such a prediction. After all, I can point out where those people made very different predictions from what you're claiming.

If you are lying, just snarl and evade.





No, mammy, it is you and your clowns who lie. Here you go, just a few of your hero's failed predictions.. Enjoy!


Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
999999.gif



o.gif


Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
inline_dashed_line.gif

More details

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'



And then again...

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016
Is conventional modelling out of pace with speed and abruptness of global warming?

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed


An ice-free prospect

Arctic sea ice is declining by nearly four per cent per decade, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The loss is particularly noticeable at the end of summer, when the ice reaches a seasonal low.

arctic_sea_ice_summer_549x297.jpg


Average extent of Arctic sea ice in summer (colours represent different datasets). Source: IPCC 5th Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (p8)

The change has wide-reaching consequences, so when it might happen is an important question.

In a recent Guardian blog post, Dr Nafeez Ahmed reports on research suggesting the Arctic Ocean could be nearly sea ice-free in just a few years time.

Under the headline, ‘US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016’, Ahmed writes:

“An ongoing Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 – 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.”

Could Arctic summers be sea ice-free in three years’ time? | Carbon Brief
 
You're just repeating Wadham and Maslowski over and over. Media darlings, but not consensus opinion.

IPCC AR5 says around 2050 for < 1 million km^2. That's the actual consensus.
 
You're just repeating Wadham and Maslowski over and over. Media darlings, but not consensus opinion.

IPCC AR5 says around 2050 for < 1 million km^2. That's the actual consensus.





No, I am pointing out that your consensus was wrong. Has been wrong, and will always BE, wrong.
 
LOL...

Tell me Old Fraud, the Arctic has been ice free 5 times in this interglacial alone, why didn't the earths temp runaway then? And even of more interest to me is the fact you cant prove that what is happening now, is outside normal variation of earths climate...
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
No, that is not what was said at all. Once again, you prove what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. What was said was that it could be ice free as soon as 2013. But that is irrelevant, considering that the amount of ice has been declining every decade since we started monitoring by satellite.
arctic-death-spiral.png
 
LOL...

Tell me Old Fraud, the Arctic has been ice free 5 times in this interglacial alone, why didn't the earths temp runaway then? And even of more interest to me is the fact you cant prove that what is happening now, is outside normal variation of earths climate...
Link? I smell another 'stinky fact'.
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
No, that is not what was said at all. Once again, you prove what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. What was said was that it could be ice free as soon as 2013. But that is irrelevant, considering that the amount of ice has been declining every decade since we started monitoring by satellite.
arctic-death-spiral.png






And that is the problem with ALL of your so called predictions olfraud. Whenever you use the word "could", or "might" you are not making a prediction. You are spewing propaganda. They are weasel words, used so that if you are lucky and the "prediction" comes true you can scream "see, we predicted this" but, when the "prediction" doesn't happen, which IS the overwhelming result of every claim you idiots make, you can say..."well, we only said it "might" happen. That's why no one with a brain pays the slightest attention to you clowns anymore.
 
LOL...

Tell me Old Fraud, the Arctic has been ice free 5 times in this interglacial alone, why didn't the earths temp runaway then? And even of more interest to me is the fact you cant prove that what is happening now, is outside normal variation of earths climate...
Link? I smell another 'stinky fact'.
I knew you were ignorant enough to not and go find it..

World Climate Report » Arctic Lessons from the Last Interglacial (Polar bears survived)
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
No, that is not what was said at all. Once again, you prove what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. What was said was that it could be ice free as soon as 2013. But that is irrelevant, considering that the amount of ice has been declining every decade since we started monitoring by satellite.
arctic-death-spiral.png






And that is the problem with ALL of your so called predictions olfraud. Whenever you use the word "could", or "might" you are not making a prediction. You are spewing propaganda. They are weasel words, used so that if you are lucky and the "prediction" comes true you can scream "see, we predicted this" but, when the "prediction" doesn't happen, which IS the overwhelming result of every claim you idiots make, you can say..."well, we only said it "might" happen. That's why no one with a brain pays the slightest attention to you clowns anymore.
So the scientists at the University of Washington are all liars? When you say something could happen, you are predicating that on the evidence you have in front of you. Gore made a silly mistake of thinking that a fast dip might represent the trend. The line that we see here represents the trend.



Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 10.5 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Image 4 of 8 (play slideshow) Download

Figure3.png


September | 2017 | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
 
Scientist Peter Wadhams believes

Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
No, that is not what was said at all. Once again, you prove what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. What was said was that it could be ice free as soon as 2013. But that is irrelevant, considering that the amount of ice has been declining every decade since we started monitoring by satellite.
arctic-death-spiral.png






And that is the problem with ALL of your so called predictions olfraud. Whenever you use the word "could", or "might" you are not making a prediction. You are spewing propaganda. They are weasel words, used so that if you are lucky and the "prediction" comes true you can scream "see, we predicted this" but, when the "prediction" doesn't happen, which IS the overwhelming result of every claim you idiots make, you can say..."well, we only said it "might" happen. That's why no one with a brain pays the slightest attention to you clowns anymore.
So the scientists at the University of Washington are all liars? When you say something could happen, you are predicating that on the evidence you have in front of you. Gore made a silly mistake of thinking that a fast dip might represent the trend. The line that we see here represents the trend.



Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 10.5 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Image 4 of 8 (play slideshow) Download

Figure3.png


September | 2017 | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis





How about you address what I said clown boy. I stated very clearly that your hero's make no predictions and gave the reason why. Refute that.
 
Wadhams is a crank, nobody ever agreed with his forecasts, and the consensus science says the opposite of what Wadhams claims.

You're running from the real science again. You have to, because the real science is so good, and because it always debunks your religious beliefs.

Tell us, why didn't you quote from, for example, IPCC predictions? Why did you go cherrypicking Wadhams? For how many more decades will you be cherrypicking Wadhams? After he's dead and buried, will you still be quoting him as the consensus science?






Hey, you are the clowns who have been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. How did those predictions pan out again?
No, that is not what was said at all. Once again, you prove what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. What was said was that it could be ice free as soon as 2013. But that is irrelevant, considering that the amount of ice has been declining every decade since we started monitoring by satellite.
arctic-death-spiral.png






And that is the problem with ALL of your so called predictions olfraud. Whenever you use the word "could", or "might" you are not making a prediction. You are spewing propaganda. They are weasel words, used so that if you are lucky and the "prediction" comes true you can scream "see, we predicted this" but, when the "prediction" doesn't happen, which IS the overwhelming result of every claim you idiots make, you can say..."well, we only said it "might" happen. That's why no one with a brain pays the slightest attention to you clowns anymore.
So the scientists at the University of Washington are all liars? When you say something could happen, you are predicating that on the evidence you have in front of you. Gore made a silly mistake of thinking that a fast dip might represent the trend. The line that we see here represents the trend.



Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 10.5 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
Image 4 of 8 (play slideshow) Download

Figure3.png


September | 2017 | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis





How about you address what I said clown boy. I stated very clearly that your hero's make no predictions and gave the reason why. Refute that.
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Pretty definite predictions at a time that people like you were claiming that it was not happening. A later book, "Storms of our Grandchildren" predicted what we saw last year. All the predictions happened far sooner than expected. And here we are in a La Nina year, with El Nino temperatures.
UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg


UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2017:+0.36 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

And the last four years have been the warmest on record.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top