Arctic sea ice could disappear within 10 years as global warming increases speed of m

[Old Rocks]

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/846/arctic-warming-overtakes-2000-years-natural-cooling

New research shows that the Arctic reversed a long-term cooling trend and began

Damned interesting how your climate gurus and models happen to find the most warming where they have the least instrumentation.

Damned interesting that you have no knowledge of the studies done but choose to do the neener-neener act.

 

[Old Rocks]

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Arctic 'warmest in 2,000 years'

BBC? Really? And it is interesting how you guys repeatedly limit your time periods to just a few thousand years as if you believe the earth were only a few thousand years old.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years (Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences )
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability
ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Research - Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia
Holocene sea-ice variations in Greenland: onshore evidence
ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0?180°W)
ingentaconnect Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based rec...
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability

Dumb ass, we are limiting our studies for two reasons. Proxies are harder to read further back, and have less bearing on current conditions. What we are seeing today are changes that previously took centuries to millenia happening in decades.

 

[SSDD]

But apparently not "interesting" enough for you to actually try to learn just where the scientists studying this subject get their data. But of course, that would require you to use that brain that you don't have.

Unlike you, I do know where it comes from. They make it up. How many times do they have to get caught altering and simply fabricating data before folks like you wake up to the scam?

 

[SSDD]

Dumb ass, we are limiting our studies for two reasons. Proxies are harder to read further back, and have less bearing on current conditions. What we are seeing today are changes that previously took centuries to millenia happening in decades.

Except that what you claim is happening in decades, is only happening in computer simulations.....not the real world. All of your fear mongering is based on the output of computer models, not actual observation. Actual observation tells us that ice loss in the arctic is due to changes in wind and ocean currents. Now, if you want to try and explain, AND SHOW PROOF that CO2 is responsible for changes in wind and ocean currents, lets see your cards.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, we are limiting our studies for two reasons. Proxies are harder to read further back, and have less bearing on current conditions. What we are seeing today are changes that previously took centuries to millenia happening in decades.

Except that what you claim is happening in decades, is only happening in computer simulations.....not the real world. All of your fear mongering is based on the output of computer models, not actual observation. Actual observation tells us that ice loss in the arctic is due to changes in wind and ocean currents. Now, if you want to try and explain, AND SHOW PROOF that CO2 is responsible for changes in wind and ocean currents, lets see your cards.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

Sea Temperature Rise -- National Geographic

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dumb ass, we are limiting our studies for two reasons. Proxies are harder to read further back, and have less bearing on current conditions. What we are seeing today are changes that previously took centuries to millenia happening in decades.

Except that what you claim is happening in decades, is only happening in computer simulations.....not the real world. All of your fear mongering is based on the output of computer models, not actual observation. Actual observation tells us that ice loss in the arctic is due to changes in wind and ocean currents. Now, if you want to try and explain, AND SHOW PROOF that CO2 is responsible for changes in wind and ocean currents, lets see your cards.

And if the Warmer Cult was around in the 1930 when we had the Midwest Dust Bowl and a hurricane that cutoff Montauk from Long Island, they'd be claiming that the Ice cap would be gone by 1940

 

[Old Rocks]

Video: the gradual disappearance of older Arctic sea ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[ba1614]

The Arctic was a tropical zone long before man was even thought of, and it will be again. It's only the most arrogant amongst us who think man can stop it. The earth is constantly changing and either warming or cooling.

Personally, I'm thankful my time here is during a period of warming instead of a cooling period.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How high's the water risin'?...

Sea-level rise from polar ice melt finally quantified
29 November 2012 - Melting of polar ice sheets has added 11mm to global sea levels over the past two decades, according to the most definitive assessment so far.

More than 20 polar research teams have combined forces to produce estimates of the state of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica in a paper in Science. Until now different measurement means have produced a wide range of estimates with large uncertainties. But sea-level rise is now among the most pressing questions of our time. Polar ice has a tremendous capacity to cause massive rises - with huge potential impacts on coastal cities and communities around the world. But the remoteness and sheer size of the ice sheets mean accurate measurements are a serious challenge even for satellites which have to distinguish snow from ice, and the rise of the land from the shrinking of the ice.

One number

The new estimate shows that polar melting contributed about one-fifth of the overall global sea level rise since 1992; other factors include warming which causes the seawater to expand. The study does not seek to forecast future change. Supported by US and European space agencies NASA and ESA, the research brought together data from satellites measuring the surface altitude, the flow of the glaciers and the gravitational effect of the ice mass to produce the first joint assessment of how the ice sheets are changing. The results show that the largest ice sheet - that of East Antarctica - has gained mass over the study period of 1992-2011 as increased snowfall added to its volume.

However Greenland, West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula were all found to be losing mass - and on a scale that more than compensates for East Antarctica's gain. The study's headline conclusion is that the polar ice sheets have overall contributed 11.1mm to sea level rise but with a "giver or take" uncertainty of 3.8mm - meaning the contribution could be as little as 7.3mm or as much as 14.9mm. The combined rate of melting from all the ice sheets has increased over the past 20 years with Greenland losing five times as much now as in 1992.

The lead author of the research, Prof Andrew Shepherd of Leeds University, said the study brings to an end 20 years of disagreement between different teams. "We can now say for sure that Antarctica is losing ice and we can see how the rate of loss from Greenland is going up over the same period as well," he said. "Prior to now there'd been 30 to 40 different estimates of how the ice sheets are changing, and what we realised was that most people just wanted one number to tell them what the real change was. "So we've brought everybody together to produce a single estimate and it turns out that estimate is two to three times more reliable than the last one."

On the rebound

OMG! 11mm! The sky is falling...ooops, the seas are rising! The seas are rising! Run for your Lives!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Woo-hoo! Maybe I'll be able to expand my farming operation when the climate in Alaska becomes more moderate!
Not everyone views global warming as a bane.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Video: the gradual disappearance of older Arctic sea ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

It's 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago, of course the ice is melting

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm still not seeing the down side.

 

[SSDD]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You have referenced that page before. I have read it and most of the links provided. What is there that you believe represents proof of anything. It is little more than a listing of the various unproven, and in most cases unphysical assumptions that the climate scam is built on.

What part do you want me to read and accept as proof of anything? OPbviously you think something is there because you keep referencing it. Which part is it or do you simply accept what you are told whether it jibes with physical laws and observation or not?

 

[SSDD]

The Arctic was a tropical zone long before man was even thought of, and it will be again. It's only the most arrogant amongst us who think man can stop it. The earth is constantly changing and either warming or cooling.

Personally, I'm thankful my time here is during a period of warming instead of a cooling period.

It staggers the mind how they can completely ignore the mostly preserved remains of wooly mamoths near the arctic circle with tropical vegetation in thier guts and believe that ice loss in the arctic is something that never happened before the internal combustion engine.

 

[westwall]

Yes of course I know the methane argument is a bunch of bullshit.

And the basis for that statement is?

Because methane has been venting for at least the last 8,000 years and there hasn't been your "methane catastrophe" yet How many more stupid tipping points do you have to pass before you stop carrying your stupid sign telling us the world is about to end?

 

[westwall]

Yes of course I know the methane argument is a bunch of bullshit.

And the basis for that statement is?

The fact that the arctic was hotter during the holocene maximum, the roman warm period, the minoan warm period and the medieval warm period without the catastrophe that your models predict.

Yes, they ignore observed scientific fact because somehow our CO2 is "special".

 

[RollingThunder]

Not everyone views global warming as a bane.

Yeah, only the most intelligent and educated and well informed people see it that way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You have referenced that page before. I have read it and most of the links provided. What is there that you believe represents proof of anything. It is little more than a listing of the various unproven, and in most cases unphysical assumptions that the climate scam is built on.

What part do you want me to read and accept as proof of anything? OPbviously you think something is there because you keep referencing it. Which part is it or do you simply accept what you are told whether it jibes with physical laws and observation or not?

The more he posts it, the truer it gets.

Has to be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not everyone views global warming as a bane.

Yeah, only the most intelligent and educated and well informed people see it that way.

And you feel those are groups that count you as a member?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You have referenced that page before. I have read it and most of the links provided. What is there that you believe represents proof of anything. It is little more than a listing of the various unproven, and in most cases unphysical assumptions that the climate scam is built on.

What part do you want me to read and accept as proof of anything? OPbviously you think something is there because you keep referencing it. Which part is it or do you simply accept what you are told whether it jibes with physical laws and observation or not?

Well, now that is so impressive. You obviously know more than all the members of the American Institute of Physics. That is only the largest scientific society of physicists in the world.

And I will expect to see your proof that Tyndall was wrong and CO2 does not have the absorption bands that so many scientists have measured since Tyndall first measured them in 1858.