Arctic ice thins dramatically

[westwall]

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the we have the hottest year on record.

Why?

Because NOAA is only using the weather stations that are located at airports thus benefitting from those wonderful warm acres of tarmac. That's why.

And the why of you posting something like that is that the only way you can argue is to outright lie. The temps that NOAA gets from it's stations have a very good coorelation with the temperatures done by the satellites.

Only In It For The Gold: UAH Temps Remain Extraordinary

Really now? Well lets see here, here's the story of just a single weather station and how its data has been manipulated. Funny how the "researchers" deemed it neccessary to go back a couple of decades to "correct" the readings. WUWT has both the raw NOAA data and the "researchers" "corrected" data. Who's lying there?

And what was that about the satellites? Oh yeah their data has been removed because they are reading 15 degrees to high on average. Are those the satellites you're talking about?

Michigan Sea Grant Coastwatch

So tell me once again who's lying?

 

[konradv]

As you said, "a single station". Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same. I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them. Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence. The preponderance of data over long periods IS. The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for. Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.

 

[westwall]

As you said, "a single station". Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same. I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them. Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence. The preponderance of data over long periods IS. The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for. Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.

Typical. Try to implicate the whistle blowers for the very thing they are demonstrating your representatives are doing. You are a tool.....and not a very good one either! Did you take the propaganda seminar that the alarmists are pushing to save their religious exercise?

 

[IanC]

sea ice minimum third lowest since 1979? wow!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.

On September 10, 2010 sea ice extent dropped to 4.76 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year; sea ice has now begun its annual cycle of growth.

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum extent is 240,000 square kilometers (93,000 square miles) above 2008 and 630,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the record low in 2007. This is 340,000 square kilometers (130,000 square miles) below 2009. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Hate to break it to you DUMB FUCK but you just PROVED that the ice is getting thicker. It has increased since the lowest every year. Ohh and remind me again how a 31 year record in the history of the Earth MEANS anything?

 

[IanC]

As you said, "a single station". Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The story of one station doesn't mean the others were the same. I'm betting they aren't and that's why westy never mentions them. Lone instances, like a Siberian malaria outbreak, aren't evidence. The preponderance of data over long periods IS. The deniers always try to obscure this fact, in favor of pointing out the random discrepancies that creep into any study, but are only troublesome if not accounted for. Thanks for pointing them out, but it doesn't bring you any closer to disproving AGW.

don't you mean the story of 'one satellite'? and without the skeptics there would have been no public admission of bad data being compiled by a seriously flawed satellite.

 

[k2skier]

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This year’s minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007. However, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

 

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.

On September 10, 2010 sea ice extent dropped to 4.76 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year; sea ice has now begun its annual cycle of growth.

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum extent is 240,000 square kilometers (93,000 square miles) above 2008 and 630,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the record low in 2007. This is 340,000 square kilometers (130,000 square miles) below 2009. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Hate to break it to you DUMB FUCK but you just PROVED that the ice is getting thicker. It has increased since the lowest every year. Ohh and remind me again how a 31 year record in the history of the Earth MEANS anything?

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years.

The ice is not getting thicker, it is getting thinner.

 

[IanC]

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This year’s minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007. However, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

depends on who you ask.

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.

 

[Chris]

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2010

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This year’s minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007. However, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

depends on who you ask.

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.

Link?

 

[IanC]

sure-

Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397

Authors: J.L. McKay, A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, C. Not, L. Polyak, and D. Darby

Abstract: Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near- surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (*156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600–7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

 

[Flopper]

I didn't read all the first page. Have we decide it's Obama's fault yet?

 

[IanC]

is that supposed to be comedic relief? fail!

everyone knows its Baby Bush's fault

 

[k2skier]

Fron your source Ian...


There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the
Arctic has been experiencing dramatic environmental
changes (e.g., Serreze et al. 2000; Comiso and Parkinson
2004). Most notably, there has been a rapid decline in the
extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently
in winter as well (e.g., Parkinson et al. 1999; Comiso 2002;
Serreze et al. 2003; Rigor and Wallace 2004; Meier et al.
2005; Comiso 2006; Comiso et al. 2008; Stroeve et al.
2008). It has been suggested that if the present trend continues
the Arctic could experience ice-free summers within
30 years (Stroeve et al. 2008). There is, however, debate on
the relative influence of natural versus anthropogenic forcing
on these recent changes. The decline in sea-ice, which
began in the late 1970s, occurred contemporaneously with a
major shift in Arctic atmospheric and oceanic circulation
(Walsh et al. 1996), hence referred to as the Arctic Oscillation
(Thompson and Wallace 1998). At this time, there was
a weakening of the Arctic High that is situated over the
Beaufort Sea and intensification of the Icelandic Low, conditions
characteristic of the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation
(+AO).

 

[Tom Clancy]

I'll raise you an accurate graph!

Wait!

If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle?

Impossible..

 

[westwall]

Fron your source Ian...


There is clear evidence that over the last 30 years the
Arctic has been experiencing dramatic environmental
changes (e.g., Serreze et al. 2000; Comiso and Parkinson
2004). Most notably, there has been a rapid decline in the
extent and thickness of sea-ice in summer and more recently
in winter as well (e.g., Parkinson et al. 1999; Comiso 2002;
Serreze et al. 2003; Rigor and Wallace 2004; Meier et al.
2005; Comiso 2006; Comiso et al. 2008; Stroeve et al.
2008). It has been suggested that if the present trend continues
the Arctic could experience ice-free summers within
30 years (Stroeve et al. 2008). There is, however, debate on
the relative influence of natural versus anthropogenic forcing
on these recent changes. The decline in sea-ice, which
began in the late 1970s, occurred contemporaneously with a
major shift in Arctic atmospheric and oceanic circulation
(Walsh et al. 1996), hence referred to as the Arctic Oscillation
(Thompson and Wallace 1998). At this time, there was
a weakening of the Arctic High that is situated over the
Beaufort Sea and intensification of the Icelandic Low, conditions
characteristic of the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation
(+AO).

Yes the last 30 years have seen a lowering of sea ice. So what. Go back the 1820's and 30's and you could sail almost 200 miles further south into the antarctic than you can now.
I doubt there were a bunch of SUV's polluting the atmosphere back then so why was there so much LESS ice 185 years ago?

 

[westwall]

I'll raise you an accurate graph!

Wait!

If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle?

Impossible..

Oh no! Heaven forbid that the Earth should actually function on its own without mans influence. The "elite" know whats best for man and beast don't you know!

 

[IanC]

K2skier- the title of this thread is 3rd lowest EVER and your quote in colour said outside of natural variability. I disagree with those two statements because they are absurd. Do you continue to believe them even given peer reviewed evidence to the contrary? It is patently false to anybody with a brain that either statement could be true.

 

[Chris]

 

[ScienceRocks]

2011 better fucking beat 2007 or global warming will become a laughable joke.