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

[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?

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.

Number of repeatable experiments demonstrating that a wisp of CO2 raises temperature = 0

 

[SSDD]

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.

I asked you a pretty straight forward question. You obviously believe that something there is actual proof of the things you claim. You seem to post it whenever you are asked for proof of anything. Which part do you believe is proof of anything?

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.

I have never said that CO2 doesn't absorb. Of course it absorbs. Then it emits. It emits at a slightly different wavelength than it absobs as evidenced by the fact that the emission lines are slightly blurred as opposed to the very sharp absorption lines. The fact that CO2 absorbs does not equal anthropogenic global warming, or any warming at all.

So I ask again, which part of that link you keep posting should I review for proof that CO2 causes warming? Before you point me to something I would ask that you make sure that you understand the difference between proof and assumption. Proof actually means something while assumption doesn't.

 

[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?

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.

If your theory is correct, can you explain why CO2 lags temperature 100% of the time across this 420,000 year data set?

 

[skookerasbil]

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


By Daily Mail Reporter

.

Arctic sea ice is melting at a faster rate than previously believed, a group of scientists have claimed.

The European Space Agency say that new satellites they are using have revealed that 900 cubic kilometres of ice have disappeared over the last year.

This is 50 per cent higher than the current estimates from environmentalists, they claim.

Icicles from melting water form on ice in the Arctic. Scientists claim the ice is disappearing faster than previously though

It is suggested that the increase is down to global warming and rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The entire region could be eventually free of ice if the estimates prove accurate. This would trigger a 'gold rush' for oil reserves and fish stocks in the region.

'Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected,' said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analysed, told the Observer.



The scientists launched the CryoSat-2 probe in 2010 specifically to study ice thickness. Until then most studies had focused on the coverage of the ice.

Submarines were also sent into the water to analyse the ice. The methods are said to have given a picture of changes in the ice around the north pole since 2004.

The study revealed that the depth of ice had also been decreasing in addition to the amount of sea it stretched across.

Data from the exploration shows that in winter 2004, the volume of sea ice in the central Arctic was approximately 17,000 cubic km. This winter it was 14,000 km, according to CryoSat.
The amount of ice in summer 2004 was said to be 13,000 km and not it is 7,000.

Professor Chris Rapley of UCL added: 'Before CryoSat, we could see summer ice coverage was dropping markedly in the Arctic.


'But we only had glimpses of what was happening to ice thickness. Obviously if it was dropping as well, the loss of summer ice was even more significant.'

The findings come after study released earlier this month from the University of Copenhagen claimed that Greenland's ice is less vulnerable than feared to a runaway melt that would drive up world sea levels.

'It is too early to proclaim the 'ice sheet's future doom' caused by climate change', lead author Kurt Kjaer wrote in a statement of the findings in the journal Science.

An examination of old photos taken from planes revealed a sharp thinning of glaciers in north-west Greenland from 1985 to 1993, the experts in Denmark, Britain and the Netherlands wrote.

Arctic sea ice could disappear within 10 years as global warming increases speed of melting | Mail Online

No worries here..........been seeing links/threads like this for well over a decade. When the Antarctic ice stops expanding, give me a yell.

 

[Old Rocks]

About March. At least we hope not in February.

 

[Old Rocks]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Is that what "wider and wider swings with an overall increase" is supposed to look like?

 

[tjvh]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

The end result :

 

[westwall]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

How about one that's easier to read....look at that...the sea ice is allready above the 2010 level.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you picked one that went back to 2007. Interesting. And hardly relevent. The 'increase' over the ice at this time in 2010 is single year ice, which will be gone by August.

You have been predicting increasing ice for the last three years, yet last years melt was way greater than any previous melt, and the amount of multiyear ice that has disappeared means that we will probably be seeing an ice free Arctic Ocean for part of the summer by 2020.

The graph from Cryosphere gives all the curves back to 1979, and one doesn't have to take but one look to see why you don't like it. Gives lie to all your rants.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[Old Rocks]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

The end result :

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

 

[westwall]

So you picked one that went back to 2007. Interesting. And hardly relevent. The 'increase' over the ice at this time in 2010 is single year ice, which will be gone by August.

You have been predicting increasing ice for the last three years, yet last years melt was way greater than any previous melt, and the amount of multiyear ice that has disappeared means that we will probably be seeing an ice free Arctic Ocean for part of the summer by 2020.

The graph from Cryosphere gives all the curves back to 1979, and one doesn't have to take but one look to see why you don't like it. Gives lie to all your rants.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

The problem with your nonsense of course is that even NOAA had to admit that the loss of sea ice was due to a storm breaking it up and moving it around. It did not in fact, melt. That's why the increase in sea ice we see now is at "record levels".

You see dear man, you keep telling us that the Arctic is going to be ice free and all of your fraudster scientists are telling us that the climate is getting ever warmer and the Arctic is just not agreeing with you. Multi year ice is thicker than it has been for years. Moreover it is of greater extent as well.

Currently your fraudster scientists have a monopoly on the media and they get to spoonfeed whatever bullcrap they wish to them. However, those days are coming to an end.

 

[westwall]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

The end result :

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

All hail the lord god gaia! The world is ending! Ooooooommmmmmmm.....

 

[mamooth]

Arctic sea ice volume. Note the current "record low" thing. As usual, reality is the exact opposite of what Westwall claims.

Westwall, of course, will continue to ignore volume and focus on area, since looking at volume destroys his crazy claims. Area is a more popular but inferior measurement, as area always bounces back to near-normal in the winter. It still gets cold at the north pole, open water still freezes, and there's lots more open water now. Thing is, it freezes into a thinner ice layer each year, and each year more of that thinner ice melts out in the summer. Higher water temps also matter a lot there, as much of the ice melts from below now.

 

[mamooth]

If your theory is correct, can you explain why CO2 lags temperature 100% of the time across this 420,000 year data set?

Can you explain why you think that's a sensible question? I can clearly see it's not a sensible question, and that it indicates poor logical thinking on your part. As an example why, try this:

"If you think humans can cause species to go extinct, can you explain why species went extinct in the past without human intervention?"

That's the same kind of bad logic that you're using. You simply assume that the present must act exactly like the past, without any basis for such a bad assumption. The correct and logical assumption would be that since since current conditions are very different from the past, the present will not act like the past.

 

[westwall]

If your theory is correct, can you explain why CO2 lags temperature 100% of the time across this 420,000 year data set?

Can you explain why you think that's a sensible question? I can clearly see it's not a sensible question, and that it indicates poor logical thinking on your part. As an example why, try this:

"If you think humans can cause species to go extinct, can you explain why species went extinct in the past without human intervention?"

That's the same kind of bad logic that you're using. You simply assume that the present must act exactly like the past, without any basis for such a bad assumption. The correct and logical assumption would be that since since current conditions are very different from the past, the present will not act like the past.

You're not too good at this are you. Your theory says that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog. Your claim is that as CO2 rises temperature does too.

However, observed scientific fact says that CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years. In light of factual evidence how does that affect your theory?

It's an easy question, please answer it.

 

[westwall]

Oh looky here. Another study that says the computer models are once again wildly inncacurate. oooops.


"A new analysis of data from dedicated satellites shows that one of the main factors predicted to drive rising sea levels in future has been seriously overestimated, with major implications for climate talks currently underway in Doha.

The new methods involve filtering out noise from the data produced by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft, sent into orbit with the aim of finding out just how much ice is melting from the world's ice sheets and glaciers. Such water then runs off into the sea, providing one of the main potential drivers of sea level rise - which is itself perhaps the main reason to worry about climate change.





"GRACE data contain a lot of signals and a lot of noise. Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before," explains professor Frederik Simons of Princeton uni. "We can 'see through' the noise and recover the 'true' geophysical information contained in these data. We can now revisit GRACE data related to areas such as river basins and irrigation and soil moisture, not just ice sheets."

Simons and his colleague Christopher Harig tried their new methods out on GRACE data covering the Greenland ice sheet, which is of particular interest as the rest of the Arctic ice cap floats on the sea and so cannot contribute directly to sea level rise by melting. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger, so Greenland is probably the major worry.

According to a Princeton statement highlighting the new research:


While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line.

In other words the possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all. Similar results were seen not long ago in GRACE data for central Asian mountain glaciers, another suggested source for sea-level rises.

If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:


At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).

Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms."


New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change ? The Register

Princeton Polar Ice


Mapping Greenland

 

[mamooth]

Your theory says that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog. Your claim is that as CO2 rises temperature does too.

Confirmed by current observation.

However, observed scientific fact says that CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years

And that observation has nothing to do with the current state of the earth, where we are adding a rapid spike of CO2.

In light of factual evidence how does that affect your theory?

It has no effect on it, since it's describing a condition in the past which is nothing at all like the present condition.

Your train of logic says that since factual evidence shows species went extinct naturally in the past, that means all species have to be going extinct naturally now, and that it's therefore impossible for humans to make species go extinct. It's just really bad logic on your part.

It's an easy question, please answer it.

Easily done. given it was such a stupid question. It assumed the present must act like the past, even if present conditions are very different, which is a highly illogical assumption.

Why do you make totally unwarranted and illogical assumption the present has to act like the past, even though conditions are totally different in the present? It's an easy question, so answer it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

The end result :

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

"...when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." -- Josef Goebbels, Guiding AGW Scientific thought

 

[RollingThunder]

"...when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." -- Josef Goebbels...

"Josef Goebbels"....media consultant for the denier cultists.