Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[westwall]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

What climatological journals do you read?

Why bother reading propoganda....

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

What climatological journals do you read?

Why bother reading propoganda....

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. That sums up you anti-science denier cult dingbats perfectly. LOL. Why bother reading when you're so crazy that you think you already know all the answers? LOL. You are such an insane freak, walleyed, you're really funny to watch, like a monkey on a string.

 

[gslack]

What climatological journals do you read?

Why bother reading propoganda....

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. That sums up you anti-science denier cult dingbats perfectly. LOL. Why bother reading when you're so crazy that you think you already know all the answers? LOL. You are such an insane freak, walleyed, you're really funny to watch, like a monkey on a string.

Ya know socko you would actually BE funny if you read them.... But you don't either... Just like chris, you two trolls grab a headline and article from your usual AGW propaganda gathering list, post it here, usually with out even reading anything but the headline, and claim its science because they mention or link to a science journal paper... And what I have shown repeatedly is they and you usually lie about the science they link to...... Or you are just too blond or ignorant to understand it...

This OP's article shows this point of fact.. The headline makes a bold statement of fact that the actual article and people interviewed or cited in it do not claim at all... But then idiotic little PR whoring trolls like you 3 don't understand the difference obviously....

For future reference; when they say words like "maybe" or "could" and especially when they "we don't know" like the OP article did; it means exactly that.... LOL you morons make this all too easy..

 

[RollingThunder]

Why bother reading propoganda....

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. That sums up you anti-science denier cult dingbats perfectly. LOL. Why bother reading when you're so crazy that you think you already know all the answers? LOL. You are such an insane freak, walleyed, you're really funny to watch, like a monkey on a string.

Ya know socko you would actually BE funny if you read them.... But you don't either... Just like chris, you two trolls grab a headline and article from your usual AGW propaganda gathering list, post it here, usually with out even reading anything but the headline, and claim its science because they mention or link to a science journal paper... And what I have shown repeatedly is they and you usually lie about the science they link to...... Or you are just too blond or ignorant to understand it...

This OP's article shows this point of fact.. The headline makes a bold statement of fact that the actual article and people interviewed or cited in it do not claim at all... But then idiotic little PR whoring trolls like you 3 don't understand the difference obviously....{I'm}

For future reference; when they say words like "maybe" or "could" and especially when they "we don't know" like the OP article did; it means exactly that.... LOL you morons make this all too easy..

I know you believe all of your self-congratulatory fantasies and ignorant drivel but nobody else does. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what is being said in the articles posted here. I don't think you understand how to tie your shoes.

A case in point: the OP article of which you claim - "The headline makes a bold statement of fact that the actual article and people interviewed or cited in it do not claim at all". LOL. You are such a lying, confused little shit-for-brains.

The headline: Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record

What the article says that matches what the headline says:

Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.

The latest satellite data show ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Ice cover has already fallen back to where it was in 2007 at this time of year and is disappearing at a faster pace than it did then. Serreze said winds, cloud cover or other weather conditions could slow the melt, but he points out that the decline is likely to speed up even more in June and July.

"What we think is thick multi-year ice late in the summer is in fact not," he said. "It's heavily decayed first-year ice. When that stuff starts to reform in the fall, we think it's multi-year ice, but it's not."

Arctic explorers and scientific expeditions are finding more open water and untrustworthy ice ever, said Barber.

He pointed out the Arctic continued to lose multi-year ice even in 2008 and 2009, when total ice coverage rebounded somewhat.

True multi-year ice — the thick, hard stuff that stops ships — now comprises about 18 per cent of the Arctic ice pack. In 1981, when Barber first went north, that figure was 90 per cent.

"This is all just part of a trajectory moving toward a seasonally ice-free Arctic," he said. "That's happening more quickly than we thought it would happen."

© 2010 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


What are you going to claim next, gsock-troll? That the CO2 is not coming from fossil fuels but is coming from the decaying green cheese that the moon is made of? LOL. You are such a retard!

 

[Big Fitz]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

 

[RollingThunder]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

 

[Big Fitz]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming? Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points? It shouldn't be too har... Ohhh that's right. You can't. The evidence doesn't exist. Oohhh my bad. Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:

Your SUV is melting the Polar Ice Caps

No, we still can't demonstrated AGW in a lab but be afraid, be very afraid and stop asking questions

Carbon Credits for Dummies

 

[Si modo]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Not quite.

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

....

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

....

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists

 

[Old Rocks]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming? Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points? It shouldn't be too har... Ohhh that's right. You can't. The evidence doesn't exist. Oohhh my bad. Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.

God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable.

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.

 

[elvis]

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming? Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points? It shouldn't be too har... Ohhh that's right. You can't. The evidence doesn't exist. Oohhh my bad. Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.

God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable.

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.

another rough night with chris, eh rockhead?

 

[Old Rocks]

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Not quite.

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

....

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

....

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists

Another fucking line of lies. There is no way to be polite when reading this kind of shit. An attack on the integrity of scientists. Just as the tobacco people used scientists that whored their credentials for the corperations money, these people are doing the same. Trying to create a climate of doubt, where no scientific doubt exits. From the National Academy of Sciences of the United States;

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” Climate Progress

Look up the reports and see what they say compared to a posier on a message board.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.


The National Academy released three reports today on “America’s Climate Choices.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming? Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points? It shouldn't be too har... Ohhh that's right. You can't. The evidence doesn't exist. Oohhh my bad. Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.

God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable.

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.

another rough night with chris, eh rockhead?

Having fantisies, our little Rent-a-Boy representative?

 

[Old Rocks]

Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:

Your SUV is melting the Polar Ice Caps

No, we still can't demonstrated AGW in a lab but be afraid, be very afraid and stop asking questions

Carbon Credits for Dummies

Demonstrated in 1858, idiot child.

 

[elvis]

God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable.

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.

another rough night with chris, eh rockhead?

Having fantisies, our little Rent-a-Boy representative?

No, fuckstain. Just because your head is throbbing because chris doesn't have a padded headboard doesn't mean you have to come on here and be an asshole.

 

[Big Fitz]

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming? Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points? It shouldn't be too har... Ohhh that's right. You can't. The evidence doesn't exist. Oohhh my bad. Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.

God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable.

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.

You got nothing, you fucking know it but are so desperate to be right rather than know truth, you've backed yourself into a corner, the science you worshiped has been debunked by the ones who did it, and now your only way out is to either go into catatonia and be dragged out unconscious or deal with the walk of shame that YOU ARE WRONG! I'm just waiting for the point where you start advocating imprisoning all those who disagree with you.

All you have to do is redo your work, prove my four points and I'll fight right along side you... for private sector solutions to save the world from the threat of CO2. But see. It's not a threat. Not even one of our making. This is all about control by progressives you love not saving the world.

Hey! I'll even meet you halfway. Propose non-governmental solutions that the free market can pick up and run with. Build a better, faster, stronger, greener product. If it's good and cheap, even I'll buy it thereby accomplishing your goal. See that's the thing with all you closet socialists. You want them to obey, not follow.

So fuck you and one have one for your horse with one more for the road, Range Rider.

 

[Si modo]

I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.

Not quite.

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

....

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

....

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists

Another fucking line of lies. There is no way to be polite when reading this kind of shit. An attack on the integrity of scientists. Just as the tobacco people used scientists that whored their credentials for the corperations money, these people are doing the same. Trying to create a climate of doubt, where no scientific doubt exits. From the National Academy of Sciences of the United States;

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” Climate Progress

Look up the reports and see what they say compared to a posier on a message board.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.


The National Academy released three reports today on “America’s Climate Choices.”

When scientists have no integrity, of course other scientists will attack them.

The fact that has to be explained to you speaks volumes.

Sometimes I feel like I am posting Captain Obvious posts, but then we have some serious stupid at USMB.

 

[elvis]

Not quite.
An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists

Another fucking line of lies. There is no way to be polite when reading this kind of shit. An attack on the integrity of scientists. Just as the tobacco people used scientists that whored their credentials for the corperations money, these people are doing the same. Trying to create a climate of doubt, where no scientific doubt exits. From the National Academy of Sciences of the United States;

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” Climate Progress

Look up the reports and see what they say compared to a posier on a message board.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.


The National Academy released three reports today on “America’s Climate Choices.”

When scientists have no integrity, of course other scientists will attack them.

The fact that has to be explained to you speaks volumes.

Sometimes I feel like I am posting Captain Obvious posts, but then we have some serious stupid at USMB.

But, but, Uncle Al told him........

 

[Old Rocks]

And what do your 'johns' tell you, Rent-a-Boy?

 

[elvis]

And what do your 'johns' tell you, Rent-a-Boy?

Rent-a-boy? Is that how you hooked up with Chris? how much did you have to pay for him? Zona wants to know.