Arctic Ice

Recovery would be the slope of that line going the other way. And one of the graphs is volume, the other extent. Point is, there is quite a bit of variability, month to month and year to year. But for the last 36 years the lines, volume and extent, are sloping downward. Simple observable facts, observed by several satellites from different nations. Not models. Sorry that your alternative reality does not include what is happening here on this planet.
 
Now that it is inconvenient you believe in NATURAL VARIATION? Oh and the upward (ice increase) trend for the last 4 years, why are you ignoring it?
and is in line with the graphs I posted. This one has a really telling uptick.

May 2015 compared to previous years

Figure 3. Monthly May ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.33% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

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

And this one a really telling downtick. And both are in the range of natural varibility, natural variability within a rapid decline.
dude, again arctic ice extent ClimateScience.com

Your graph doesn't agree with this one.

db138d812c.png

Did you think that any of these graphs show Arctic ice extents stable or recovering?
Hmm, the titles stated recovery! Hmmm

I don't see the word "recovery" in any of them.
 
and is in line with the graphs I posted. This one has a really telling uptick.

May 2015 compared to previous years

Figure 3. Monthly May ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.33% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

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

And this one a really telling downtick. And both are in the range of natural varibility, natural variability within a rapid decline.
dude, again arctic ice extent ClimateScience.com

Your graph doesn't agree with this one.

db138d812c.png

Did you think that any of these graphs show Arctic ice extents stable or recovering?
Hmm, the titles stated recovery! Hmmm

I don't see the word "recovery" in any of them.
Then you should go to the site
 
Also, you should learn to take care of that hard.. On! Back to the OP, recovering!
 
global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


Im just not seeing a death spiral.

NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif


or here

seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


or even here, which focuses on Arctic loss. the big dips were at least partially explained by local weather patterns. big storms swept the ice out into warmer waters. remember, this is an anomaly map.

seaice.area_.arctic.png


definitely less scary, huh?

does Arctic sea ice have a cycle to it? did we start at a high point? who knows, not me but I dont see any imminent collapse here.
 
Ian, the simple fact is the first year that the Arctic Ocean is actually clear of ice for a short time, you will immediatley say that we have no proof that this has not happened the in the relatively recent years. Were we to see a meter of sea level rise by 2050, you would immediatly say there is no proof that this is not natural.
 
global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


Im just not seeing a death spiral.

NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif


or here

seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


or even here, which focuses on Arctic loss. the big dips were at least partially explained by local weather patterns. big storms swept the ice out into warmer waters. remember, this is an anomaly map.

seaice.area_.arctic.png


definitely less scary, huh?

does Arctic sea ice have a cycle to it? did we start at a high point? who knows, not me but I dont see any imminent collapse here.

If you're looking at Arctic ice extents, why are you looking at all these graphs that dilute that value with other snow and ice data? Why not look at the direct measurements, like these:

HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg


Figure3.png




6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi
 
Ian, the simple fact is the first year that the Arctic Ocean is actually clear of ice for a short time, you will immediatley say that we have no proof that this has not happened the in the relatively recent years. Were we to see a meter of sea level rise by 2050, you would immediatly say there is no proof that this is not natural.


If wishes were horses, Old Rocks would ride.

Your gullibility beggars belief.
 
global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


Im just not seeing a death spiral.

NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif


or here

seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


or even here, which focuses on Arctic loss. the big dips were at least partially explained by local weather patterns. big storms swept the ice out into warmer waters. remember, this is an anomaly map.

seaice.area_.arctic.png


definitely less scary, huh?

does Arctic sea ice have a cycle to it? did we start at a high point? who knows, not me but I dont see any imminent collapse here.

If you're looking at Arctic ice extents, why are you looking at all these graphs that dilute that value with other snow and ice data? Why not look at the direct measurements, like these:

HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg


Figure3.png




6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi


Crick predicts an ice free Arctic this summer. I hope I remember to bump this in September.
 
Crick predicts an ice free Arctic this summer. I hope I remember to bump this in September.

Misquoting me is a violation of the new rules. It's a violation of the old rules. It's also the behavior of a complete ass.

Why don't you take that back while you can?
 
See if this makes any sense to you

Abstract
Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Similarly to the observed ice concentration trends, the small overall increase in modeled ice volume is actually the residual of much larger opposing regional trends. Thickness changes near the ice edge follow observed concentration changes, with increasing concentration corresponding to increased thickness. Ice thickness increases are also found in the inner pack in the Amundsen and Weddell Seas, where the model suggests that observed ice-drift trends directed toward the coast have caused dynamical thickening in autumn and winter. Modeled changes are predominantly dynamic in origin in the Pacific sector and thermodynamic elsewhere.

The actual address will not display, but clicking on the error message will take you to the source of this abstract
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
 
If you're looking at Arctic ice extents, why are you looking at all these graphs that dilute that value with other snow and ice data? Why not look at the direct measurements, like these:





6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi

how is this not predicting an ice free summer in the arctic?

and why are you pissed at me for making fun of what you said, hmmmm? I quoted you and commented, just like you do to me. should I start reporting you for your actions?
 
If you're looking at Arctic ice extents, why are you looking at all these graphs that dilute that value with other snow and ice data? Why not look at the direct measurements, like these:





6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi

how is this not predicting an ice free summer in the arctic?

and why are you pissed at me for making fun of what you said, hmmmm? I quoted you and commented, just like you do to me. should I start reporting you for your actions?
Ian, you are starting to sound like Walleyes. Crick posted a graph from PIOMAS. That was not his prediction, and the curve is hardly a solid prediction. However, it does demonstrate that the ice volume is rapidly diminishing.
 
The main argument has always been what is causing the ice to melt..............

The Global warming cult says it's mostly man made...............Yet the ice has been melting since the last ice age...............It's been melting way way before there was ever any industrial tech at all.................

The computer models have all been high and way off the mark.............temps on average lower............
Modern testing only around for 3 decades..............
Weather stations in shitty spots, and NOAA has take out of service 600 of them in recent time..........Like ones located next to a steam vent...............or one located in the shade..........reducing their accuracy and trustabiltiy.....

Global groups have been caught manipulating data.................

Global cults discount other scientist that say man may have a total of 1% of CO2 emissions over the last century...............that NATURE HAS 99% of the overall picture of warming...............

The alarmist have said we would freeze............we would be under water...........it's cooling........no warming ...............to climate change......................

The cult disregards new studies on Volcanic activities...............in the antarctic as insignificant to loss of ice.....................then post dumb ass remarks about how ICE KICKS AS ON MAGMA....................

The cult when we point out Scientist using 1 weather station per 12000 square miles of area is accurate when we say it's not enough data....................

and so on and so on....................

The global warmers.................praise the scientist who agree with them................when their predictions come up wrong time and time again.....................and supposedly we are the problem...........

Which is a joke................
 
OK, Eagle, baseless flap-yap until you post links to credible sources.
I've been posting data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville for some time.................they have been monitoring via Satelite since 1979.................

Again..............dismiss what I say...........that is expected.............but has the earth's ice been melting since the last Ice age or not..........................and has it been melting when there was NO INDUSTRIALIZATION.......................

Then answer how much is man made and how much is by nature.................

Then answer how all their computer models have been wrong time and time again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top