Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite

[Old Rocks]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

And yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today. Also here is a nice chart showing the vast majority of the ice loss occurred when CO2 levels were much lower and all before 1900.

Walleyes, you are going to go with this one glacier, and think that the rest of us are dumb enough to judge what is happening in the whole of the world is represented in the history of this one glacier?

You have again posted a lie. Most of the regression of the glaciers worldwide have occured in since the '50s until present. And that is the statement of the USGS and the Geological Services of the rest of the northern nations worldwide. This one tidewater glacier hardly represents the whole world.

 

[RollingThunder]

and yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........how many times are you going to try to beat that dead horse??? How many times has this BS of your been debunked????? You are such a loser retard, walleyed.....


Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
British and Americans Rendezvous at Pole
(excerpts)

HMS Tireless pops up for a peek.

The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. The ice exercise demonstrated the U.S. and British Submarine Force's ability to navigate freely in international waters, including under the ice in the Arctic Ocean - the harshest maritime environment on Earth! Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness. Hey! Watch out for polar bears! On a previous US submarine mission, the crew watched in amazement as a curious bear chewed the fin and external casing of their vessel.

USS Hampton at the North Pole.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.

 

[Dubya]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

And yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today. Also here is a nice chart showing the vast majority of the ice loss occurred when CO2 levels were much lower and all before 1900.

You claim to be geologist and you don't know what a polynia is? How could you even be around Environmental Forums and not have seen that picture explained before?

A polynya (common US spelling) or polynia (common UK spelling) (pron.: /pəˈlɪnjə/) is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice.[1] It is now used as geographical term for an area of unfrozen sea within the ice pack. It is a loanword from Russian: полынья, Russian pronunciation: [pəlɨˈnʲja] (polynya or polynia), which means a natural ice hole, and was adopted in the 19th century by polar explorers to describe navigable portions of the sea.[2][3] In past decades, for example, some polynyas, such as the Weddell Polynya, have lasted over multiple winters (1974–1976).[4]

When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 60s, there was a significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same, large polynya near the North Pole, for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[6]

Source: Polynya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claiming that submarines can't presently surface in polynias is just pure fabrication started by WUWT and you know it. We've been using the term polynia since the 19th century. You know polynias aren't that uncommon and were regularly mapped by nuclear submarines before there were satellites.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/3-subs-north-pole-1987.jpg

 

[westwall]

Are these the same people that fudged the global warming numbers?

Can you cite or reference compelling evidences that such has occurred?

Yes, we have repeatedly. Why do you insist on keeping your head in the sand?

 

[westwall]

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

And yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today. Also here is a nice chart showing the vast majority of the ice loss occurred when CO2 levels were much lower and all before 1900.

You claim to be geologist and you don't know what a polynia is? How could you even be around Environmental Forums and not have seen that picture explained before?

A polynya (common US spelling) or polynia (common UK spelling) (pron.: /pəˈlɪnjə/) is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice.[1] It is now used as geographical term for an area of unfrozen sea within the ice pack. It is a loanword from Russian: полынья, Russian pronunciation: [pəlɨˈnʲja] (polynya or polynia), which means a natural ice hole, and was adopted in the 19th century by polar explorers to describe navigable portions of the sea.[2][3] In past decades, for example, some polynyas, such as the Weddell Polynya, have lasted over multiple winters (1974–1976).[4]

When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 60s, there was a significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same, large polynya near the North Pole, for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[6]

Source: Polynya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claiming that submarines can't presently surface in polynias is just pure fabrication started by WUWT and you know it. We've been using the term polynia since the 19th century. You know polynias aren't that uncommon and were regularly mapped by nuclear submarines before there were satellites.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/3-subs-north-pole-1987.jpg

They're also called leads, and currently there is no way that even one sub could punch its way through where these three subs were photographed. Do you understand that the supposed ice "loss" wasn't and was instead a hurricane driven scattering of the ice that when winter came again re-accreted at a record rate?

The ice level in the Arctic has remained fairly constant for the last 20 years. The level in the Antarctic has been above one standard deviation for over two years now.

Care to address that fact?

 

[westwall]

and yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........how many times are you going to try to beat that dead horse??? How many times has this BS of your been debunked????? You are such a loser retard, walleyed.....


Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
British and Americans Rendezvous at Pole
(excerpts)

HMS Tireless pops up for a peek.

The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. The ice exercise demonstrated the U.S. and British Submarine Force's ability to navigate freely in international waters, including under the ice in the Arctic Ocean - the harshest maritime environment on Earth! Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness. Hey! Watch out for polar bears! On a previous US submarine mission, the crew watched in amazement as a curious bear chewed the fin and external casing of their vessel.

USS Hampton at the North Pole.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.

Yeah, wow, 8 years ago. Got anything more current?

 

[Dubya]

and yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........how many times are you going to try to beat that dead horse??? How many times has this BS of your been debunked????? You are such a loser retard, walleyed.....


Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
British and Americans Rendezvous at Pole
(excerpts)

HMS Tireless pops up for a peek.

The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. The ice exercise demonstrated the U.S. and British Submarine Force's ability to navigate freely in international waters, including under the ice in the Arctic Ocean - the harshest maritime environment on Earth! Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness. Hey! Watch out for polar bears! On a previous US submarine mission, the crew watched in amazement as a curious bear chewed the fin and external casing of their vessel.

USS Hampton at the North Pole.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.

Yeah, wow, 8 years ago. Got anything more current?

Everyday, the United States Navy analyzes the satellite data of the arctic for navigational purposes. You ought to know that because Denialistas intentionally try to use their charts to exaggerate the amount of sea ice, because they know the Navy errs on the side of caution about an area potentially having sea ice. Besides, tomorrow, the entire arctic is analyzed again, so a false reading of sea ice isn't hurting anything.

 

[RollingThunder]

and yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...........how many times are you going to try to beat that dead horse??? How many times has this BS of your been debunked????? You are such a loser retard, walleyed.....


Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
British and Americans Rendezvous at Pole
(excerpts)

HMS Tireless pops up for a peek.

The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other. The ice exercise demonstrated the U.S. and British Submarine Force's ability to navigate freely in international waters, including under the ice in the Arctic Ocean - the harshest maritime environment on Earth! Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months at a time, and following a joint operational exercise under the polar ice cap, both submarines surfaced and the crews met on the ice. Crewmembers had been crammed on board the submarines under the ice for weeks, so they were glad to get out for a stroll and take in the stark beauty of the Arctic wilderness. Hey! Watch out for polar bears! On a previous US submarine mission, the crew watched in amazement as a curious bear chewed the fin and external casing of their vessel.

USS Hampton at the North Pole.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.

Yeah, wow, 8 years ago. Got anything more current?

ROTFLMAO......too funny.

You have, for years now, posted pictures of some submarines surfaced at the North Pole in 1987 and idiotically claimed that this somehow shows that the ice was thinner in the past. You have ignored all of the times that evidence has been shown to you proving that natural openings, called 'leads' or 'polynyas', in the sea ice cover have always occurred and are still happening. Now, on this thread, you once again pull out your old debunked BS and state: "there is no way in heck that this rendevous(sic) could occur today". I show pictures of subs surfaced at the pole eight years ago and you dismiss that as 'not current enough'. LOLOLOL. How about if you explain just what you meant when you said: "there is no way in heck that this rendevous(sic) could occur today"??? Do you really believe that the North Polar ice cap has suddenly frozen over solid with no holes or 'leads' sometime in the last eight years? LOLOLOLOLOLOL......you are such a clueless little nitwit....