Arctic Ice stable since 1979!!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

And.....if you put the information from 1970 to 1979 onto that graph of yours.....

Good idea. Let's do exactly that.

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

you would see a mirror image of what you presented.

Clearly not true, as it doesn't resemble a mirror image at all. It shows steady levels until a downturn begins around 1950.

Your cronies start that fraudulent graph when sea ice was at its highest level.

Clearly not true. 1979 is part of the downtrend, and is not an especially high year.

They ignore the cyclical nature of Arctic sea ice.

Clearly not true, given there is no indication of any "cyclical nature" since 1900.

So Westwall, why did you so proudly state the exact opposite of the truth here?

Chinese soot still the best explanation

 

[Old Rocks]

And.....if you put the information from 1970 to 1979 onto that graph of yours.....

Good idea. Let's do exactly that.

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

you would see a mirror image of what you presented.

Clearly not true, as it doesn't resemble a mirror image at all. It shows steady levels until a downturn begins around 1950.

Your cronies start that fraudulent graph when sea ice was at its highest level.

Clearly not true. 1979 is part of the downtrend, and is not an especially high year.

They ignore the cyclical nature of Arctic sea ice.

Clearly not true, given there is no indication of any "cyclical nature" since 1900.

So Westwall, why did you so proudly state the exact opposite of the truth here?

Because that is what Mr. Westwall does the best. Post the opposite of truth. From the time he started posting here, he has proclaimed that we are entering a cooling period. In those five years, we have had two record years of heat, 2010 and 2014. And now we are having a year that will establish a new standard.

He has repeatedly stated that there is no greenhouse affect from GHGs. And many other ridicoulous statements that one would expect of someone that failed their high school GED test. He constantly denigrates the scientists at the AGU and GSA, yet claims to be a Phd Geologist. I, and others, have posted presentations by the leaders in the study of glaciers, and the cryosphere in general, and he then claims that they are all liars and frauds involved in some kind of great international conspiracy.

 

[Old Rocks]

And.....if you put the information from 1970 to 1979 onto that graph of yours.....

Good idea. Let's do exactly that.

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

you would see a mirror image of what you presented.

Clearly not true, as it doesn't resemble a mirror image at all. It shows steady levels until a downturn begins around 1950.

Your cronies start that fraudulent graph when sea ice was at its highest level.

Clearly not true. 1979 is part of the downtrend, and is not an especially high year.

They ignore the cyclical nature of Arctic sea ice.

Clearly not true, given there is no indication of any "cyclical nature" since 1900.

So Westwall, why did you so proudly state the exact opposite of the truth here?

Chinese soot still the best explanation

Read the graph. No Chinese soot in 1955, and that was when the signal for the melting of the Arctic Ice started showing up.

 

[Old Rocks]

What's your point?

First, that you can't read.

Second, that ice levels keep declining due to global warming.

Third, that you have to a complete retard to deny that.

If you need it dumbed down any more than that, you're ought of luck.

Google: scientific method

You're not even in the same universe

LOL!!! You think trained scientist at the noaa, nasa and every science institution on the planet doesn't understand the scientific method!

have you heard about the first Apollo astronauts who died on Apollo 1? Really, are you that naive that you don't think coverups happen in Government? Money will always reign as supreme qualifier to someone's view in government. Once there is a cover up, incriminates for life. Oh and what about the Challenger Shuttle? Yeah, NASA has a quality past. Government cover ups happen all the time. Ask the guy in Russia, how about Benghazi? dude, those are off the top of my head. More research would provide more, but not for the sake of this argument. See, you have nothing to support there isn't a cover up on temperature collection.

Oh, and what about UFO sightings being covered up. Global climate seems like easy pickens since no one is allowed to challenge them.

That shit belongs on the conspiracy board. Stick with reality here.

 

[Old Rocks]

The story here is a bit warped. I don't do ice.. But if I did --- the story here is a potentially more accurate satellite to measure sea ice volume. Has just a 5 yr record of volume. Covers the 2012 minimum and the subsequent recovery. Nothing to claim here. EXCEPT...

Arctic sea ice could COMPLETELY disappear at peak summer and that whole situation could turn around in 15 to 20 years. That's NOT climate time scale. It's different from the S. Pole because Arctic ice is mostly less than 6 or 8 years old and can regenerate that quickly..

It really really really is a very bad indicator of Global Warming.. It does NOTHING but grow 10 months of the year. And only about 3 months matter at all to it's melt rate..

When the Arctic Sea Ice disappears completely for part of the summer, it will be a major tipping point. Then the Arctic waters will be absorbing 90% of the energy instead of reflecting 90% of the energy in the sunlight. That will lead to more warming, both on the land, melting permafrost and releasing CO2 and CH4, and more warming of the Arctic Ocean, possibly causing a major release of CH4 from the clathrates. The first is a certainty, the second a possibility, but one that is already starting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And.....if you put the information from 1970 to 1979 onto that graph of yours.....

Good idea. Let's do exactly that.

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

you would see a mirror image of what you presented.

Clearly not true, as it doesn't resemble a mirror image at all. It shows steady levels until a downturn begins around 1950.

Your cronies start that fraudulent graph when sea ice was at its highest level.

Clearly not true. 1979 is part of the downtrend, and is not an especially high year.

They ignore the cyclical nature of Arctic sea ice.

Clearly not true, given there is no indication of any "cyclical nature" since 1900.

So Westwall, why did you so proudly state the exact opposite of the truth here?

Chinese soot still the best explanation

Read the graph. No Chinese soot in 1955, and that was when the signal for the melting of the Arctic Ice started showing up.

Absurd. Was CO2 different after 1950???

The charts is a near perfect fit with increase in soot

 

[Old Rocks]

Link? From at least 1955.

 

[flacaltenn]

The story here is a bit warped. I don't do ice.. But if I did --- the story here is a potentially more accurate satellite to measure sea ice volume. Has just a 5 yr record of volume. Covers the 2012 minimum and the subsequent recovery. Nothing to claim here. EXCEPT...

Arctic sea ice could COMPLETELY disappear at peak summer and that whole situation could turn around in 15 to 20 years. That's NOT climate time scale. It's different from the S. Pole because Arctic ice is mostly less than 6 or 8 years old and can regenerate that quickly..

It really really really is a very bad indicator of Global Warming.. It does NOTHING but grow 10 months of the year. And only about 3 months matter at all to it's melt rate..

When the Arctic Sea Ice disappears completely for part of the summer, it will be a major tipping point. Then the Arctic waters will be absorbing 90% of the energy instead of reflecting 90% of the energy in the sunlight. That will lead to more warming, both on the land, melting permafrost and releasing CO2 and CH4, and more warming of the Arctic Ocean, possibly causing a major release of CH4 from the clathrates. The first is a certainty, the second a possibility, but one that is already starting.

It will clear for 2 maybe 3 months of the year. Besides, the calthrate loading amounts are far over-rated as we have discussed. AND ---- you forget the massive NEGATIVE feedback whereby those really cool water become an extremely efficient Carbon SINK.. They will eat up more atmos CO2 than the equivalent area of new forest..

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm back today. Tooth feels your graph because it was global is not valid.

This graph?

Anyone saying "Arctic ice has been stable since 1979" is simply lying, proudly and flagrantly. Given how obvious the decline is, "deliberate dishonesty" is the only possible reason for saying something so crazy.

Soot from China fits that perfectly well

What is the source of this graph?

 

[Old Rocks]

The story here is a bit warped. I don't do ice.. But if I did --- the story here is a potentially more accurate satellite to measure sea ice volume. Has just a 5 yr record of volume. Covers the 2012 minimum and the subsequent recovery. Nothing to claim here. EXCEPT...

Arctic sea ice could COMPLETELY disappear at peak summer and that whole situation could turn around in 15 to 20 years. That's NOT climate time scale. It's different from the S. Pole because Arctic ice is mostly less than 6 or 8 years old and can regenerate that quickly..

It really really really is a very bad indicator of Global Warming.. It does NOTHING but grow 10 months of the year. And only about 3 months matter at all to it's melt rate..

When the Arctic Sea Ice disappears completely for part of the summer, it will be a major tipping point. Then the Arctic waters will be absorbing 90% of the energy instead of reflecting 90% of the energy in the sunlight. That will lead to more warming, both on the land, melting permafrost and releasing CO2 and CH4, and more warming of the Arctic Ocean, possibly causing a major release of CH4 from the clathrates. The first is a certainty, the second a possibility, but one that is already starting.

It will clear for 2 maybe 3 months of the year. Besides, the calthrate loading amounts are far over-rated as we have discussed. AND ---- you forget the massive NEGATIVE feedback whereby those really cool water become an extremely efficient Carbon SINK.. They will eat up more atmos CO2 than the equivalent area of new forest..

Source for that claim?

 

[flacaltenn]

The story here is a bit warped. I don't do ice.. But if I did --- the story here is a potentially more accurate satellite to measure sea ice volume. Has just a 5 yr record of volume. Covers the 2012 minimum and the subsequent recovery. Nothing to claim here. EXCEPT...

Arctic sea ice could COMPLETELY disappear at peak summer and that whole situation could turn around in 15 to 20 years. That's NOT climate time scale. It's different from the S. Pole because Arctic ice is mostly less than 6 or 8 years old and can regenerate that quickly..

It really really really is a very bad indicator of Global Warming.. It does NOTHING but grow 10 months of the year. And only about 3 months matter at all to it's melt rate..

When the Arctic Sea Ice disappears completely for part of the summer, it will be a major tipping point. Then the Arctic waters will be absorbing 90% of the energy instead of reflecting 90% of the energy in the sunlight. That will lead to more warming, both on the land, melting permafrost and releasing CO2 and CH4, and more warming of the Arctic Ocean, possibly causing a major release of CH4 from the clathrates. The first is a certainty, the second a possibility, but one that is already starting.

It will clear for 2 maybe 3 months of the year. Besides, the calthrate loading amounts are far over-rated as we have discussed. AND ---- you forget the massive NEGATIVE feedback whereby those really cool water become an extremely efficient Carbon SINK.. They will eat up more atmos CO2 than the equivalent area of new forest..

Source for that claim?

what's the issue Bullwinkle? that really cold open water is a huge Carbon sink? Or the argument about the what remains of the calthrates and permafrost is such a small percentage of what ALREADY melted to get to our mild Holocene temperatures with no runaway warming?

You need a source for those observations?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, I do. I have not seen any indication that you have the scientific background to judge whether the water would be a sufficient sink to make up for what is coming out of the permafrost and clathrates. I certainly do not, that is why I back up my statements with the papers and statements of known experts in the various disciplines involved.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, I do. I have not seen any indication that you have the scientific background to judge whether the water would be a sufficient sink to make up for what is coming out of the permafrost and clathrates. I certainly do not, that is why I back up my statements with the papers and statements of known experts in the various disciplines involved.

Did I say it would balance any increase in positive feedbacks? It's just a fact that an immense Carbon sink would be created if the Arctic Ocean was clear of ice.. PERHAPS --- that's part of the balancing and why the earth didn't commit suicide when 80+ % of the calthrates melted coming out of the last four glacials... The oceans and land that had been ice-bound were removed from the carbon cycle. And they ate up a crapload of all that thawed CO2 and methane gas..

I do believe that an acre of forest is probably FAR less efficient as a carbon sink than an acre of clear Arctic Ocean. I will back that up when I get a break. I'm on an all night coding deadline tonight for a project in UL testing.....

 

[Old Rocks]

80% of the clathrates melted coming out of the last four glacials? Again, a bald statement without any backup.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm back today. Tooth feels your graph because it was global is not valid.

This graph?

Anyone saying "Arctic ice has been stable since 1979" is simply lying, proudly and flagrantly. Given how obvious the decline is, "deliberate dishonesty" is the only possible reason for saying something so crazy.

Soot from China fits that perfectly well

Frank............it is pretty funny that the alarmist contingent debates this stuff as if China doesn't exist. I never quite understood the thinking, but clearly, we have an enormous disconnect here. These dolts want us to unleash the knobby cucumber on ourselves, create massive job losses while China increases coal use by 50% over the next 2 decades...........as Ive said earlier in this thread.........the thought processing is fucked. Like supporting a weight loss program that involves amputation as a solution.

 

[skookerasbil]

80% of the clathrates melted coming out of the last four glacials? Again, a bald statement without any backup.

So.....whats the solution Ray? ( no fantasy-like responses....people like their a/c, cell phones and prefer electric lighting over candlelight and cant afford to pay double for their electricity ). Otherwise, all this talk about arctic ice is nothing but internet banter!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Two years ago, UN researchers were claiming that it would cost "as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade" to go green. A new UN report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

UN Claims Going Green to Cost $76 Trillion







[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Gaedel_1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Old Rocks]

Given that solar and wind are already cheaper to install and run than coal or natural gas, in less than a generation, both can be replaced for the generation of electricity. The grid scale batteries will make both sources 24/7. Unless the mini-tokomak that one company states they can build turns out to be the real thing. Then, of course, you will see a very disruptive technology.

As for the cost, electricity has been going up steadily for as long as I have been alive. Yet, since we started to bring the renewables online, the rate of increase has diminished. It will still increase, because of the need of replacing the existing generation and grid. However, solar does give the homeowner an alternative to paying the utility. And, with Tesla's new batteries, has a backup for times when the grid goes down.

 

[Old Rocks]

Already happening, Old Man. Many third world nations are now looking to go directly to renewables, and skip the fossil fuel step. China and India are both investing heavily in renewables. And here in the US we are starting to install solar wind in a big way. Especially Texas. And the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado could be making buku bucks with the wind energy they have. Yes, it will require investment. But investment is how a Capitalist system works.

 

[skookerasbil]

Given that solar and wind are already cheaper to install and run than coal or natural gas, in less than a generation, both can be replaced for the generation of electricity. The grid scale batteries will make both sources 24/7. Unless the mini-tokomak that one company states they can build turns out to be the real thing. Then, of course, you will see a very disruptive technology.

As for the cost, electricity has been going up steadily for as long as I have been alive. Yet, since we started to bring the renewables online, the rate of increase has diminished. It will still increase, because of the need of replacing the existing generation and grid. However, solar does give the homeowner an alternative to paying the utility. And, with Tesla's new batteries, has a backup for times when the grid goes down.

Ray.....it is quite impossible. Why "Going Green" is impossible given our current monetary system