Arctic sea ice set to hit record low

[Chris]

Arctic sea ice looks set to hit a record low by the end of the month, according to satellite data.

Scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said data showed that the sea ice extent was tracking below the previous record low, set in 2007.

Latest figures show that on 13 August ice extent was 483,000 sq km (186,000 sq miles) below the previous record low for the same date five years ago.

The ice is expected to continue melting until mid- to late September.

"A new daily record... would be likely by the end of August," the centre's lead scientist, Ted Scambos, told Reuters.

"Chances are it will cross the previous record while we are still in ice retreat."

BBC News - Arctic sea ice set to hit record low

 

[Old Rocks]

And look at that curve!!!!!!

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[westwall]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought AGW cause droughts?

Can't it make up it's mind?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ice has been retreating for a while now, right?

Do we want ice to cover north America down to the Bronx again?

 

[westwall]

Ice has been retreating for a while now, right?

Do we want ice to cover north America down to the Bronx again?

It would clean the place up nicely! Think of all the benefits before you pooh pooh the idea!

 

[skookerasbil]

Arctic sea ice looks set to hit a record low by the end of the month, according to satellite data.

Scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said data showed that the sea ice extent was tracking below the previous record low, set in 2007.

Latest figures show that on 13 August ice extent was 483,000 sq km (186,000 sq miles) below the previous record low for the same date five years ago.

The ice is expected to continue melting until mid- to late September.

"A new daily record... would be likely by the end of August," the centre's lead scientist, Ted Scambos, told Reuters.

"Chances are it will cross the previous record while we are still in ice retreat."

BBC News - Arctic sea ice set to hit record low

nobody cares s0n.

 

[Billo_Really]

The argument against climate change is so ridiculous,
it's like arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes!​

(and the people who make these arguments,
are nothing more than corporate bitches,
doing what they're told like good little whore's)​

 

[westwall]

The argument against climate change is so ridiculous,
it's like arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes!​

(and the people who make these arguments,
are nothing more than corporate bitches,
doing what they're told like good little whore's)​

Sure thing buckwheat. Now, if only you could produce some actual physical evidence to support what you say you would have a point. However, as you can only provide useless computer model derived crapola you can take your infantile, science hating, uninformed opinion and stick it where it will do you some good.

 

[mamooth]

Northern hemisphere snow cover (on land) is also at record low levels. That's not going to help matters, because of the lower albedo (darker ground) absorbing more heat. Another positive feedback to amplify the greenhouse gas warming.

But then, that's just more direct physical evidence. How can that even hope to compare to denialist cultists crying out that there's no evidence but models?

 

[westwall]

Northern hemisphere snow cover (on land) is also at record low levels. That's not going to help matters, because of the lower albedo (darker ground) absorbing more heat. Another positive feedback to amplify the greenhouse gas warming.

But then, that's just more direct physical evidence. How can that even hope to compare to denialist cultists crying out that there's no evidence but models?

First you would have to show that CO2 actually has an observable effect. Something you guys have never been able to do. The Vostock Ice cores show that first comes warming THEN comes the rise in CO2....from 400 to 800 years AFTER the warming occured....but that would be science...and we all know you don't do science.

And for your information I suggest you look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. In there you will see that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

AGW cultism is based entirely on correlation.

Cute kitty BTW.

 

[mamooth]

First you would have to show that CO2 actually has an observable effect. Something you guys have never been able to do.

Completely wrong. Direct measurements of heat flux in and out of the atmosphere show the reduction in outgoing radiation over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies, the increase in downward re-radiation, and the heat flux imbalance. Exactly as AGW theory predicted well ahead of time.

The Vostock Ice cores show that first comes warming THEN comes the rise in CO2....from 400 to 800 years AFTER the warming occured....but that would be science...and we all know you don't do science.

Awful logic on your part, being that you're assuming the present has to act like the past, even if present conditions are as wildly different as they are.

And for your information I suggest you look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. In there you will see that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

The scientific method involves formulating a theory, using it to make a prediction, and seeing that prediction come true. AGW theory has done that over and over for decades, which is why it has so much credibility. No other theory comes even close to explaining the observed physical data as well, or is as successful at predicting the future.

If you think you have a better theory, present it. You'd be the first. What theory do you have that explains the observed changes in earth's temperature and infrared radiation signature? What predictions about the future does that theory make? Keep in mind that handwaving about mysterious "natural causes" is not a theory; all causes need to be specifically identified.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes claims to be a geologist, yet constant denigrates the real field geologists that gather the evidence. He constantly claims that the those that are voted in as leaders in both the Americanc Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America are forcing their view on a membership that is in revolt concerning those views, yet never presents any evidence concerning those assertations.

Mamooth, don't know if you have perused this site, but the AGU has a site that presents the best of the lectures at their winter conferance.

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

 

[Old Rocks]

 

[westwall]

First you would have to show that CO2 actually has an observable effect. Something you guys have never been able to do.

Completely wrong. Direct measurements of heat flux in and out of the atmosphere show the reduction in outgoing radiation over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies, the increase in downward re-radiation, and the heat flux imbalance. Exactly as AGW theory predicted well ahead of time.

The Vostock Ice cores show that first comes warming THEN comes the rise in CO2....from 400 to 800 years AFTER the warming occured....but that would be science...and we all know you don't do science.

Awful logic on your part, being that you're assuming the present has to act like the past, even if present conditions are as wildly different as they are.

And for your information I suggest you look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. In there you will see that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

The scientific method involves formulating a theory, using it to make a prediction, and seeing that prediction come true. AGW theory has done that over and over for decades, which is why it has so much credibility. No other theory comes even close to explaining the observed physical data as well, or is as successful at predicting the future.

If you think you have a better theory, present it. You'd be the first. What theory do you have that explains the observed changes in earth's temperature and infrared radiation signature? What predictions about the future does that theory make? Keep in mind that handwaving about mysterious "natural causes" is not a theory; all causes need to be specifically identified.

Really? Show us.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes claims to be a geologist, yet constant denigrates the real field geologists that gather the evidence. He constantly claims that the those that are voted in as leaders in both the Americanc Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America are forcing their view on a membership that is in revolt concerning those views, yet never presents any evidence concerning those assertations.

Mamooth, don't know if you have perused this site, but the AGU has a site that presents the best of the lectures at their winter conferance.

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

Wrong again buckwheat, I denigrate the black box scientists who whore themselves out for a buck and produce worthless computer models that are less accurate than random guessing.

 

[Synthaholic]

You can predict what's going to happen:

Climate change is going to cause a massive hurricane, that will do huge damage to a place like Miami, and everyone's insurance will go thru the roof.

May even see insurance companies bailing, going under, leaving the taxpayers to pick up the bill again. Another AIG.

 

[Old Rocks]

Swiss Re and Munich Re, the people who insure the insurance companies have already stated that for areas that will see major impacts from the changing climate, there will be little to no insurance available from the insurance companies, that governments will have to handle those areas.

And it is more than just hurricanes.

 

[skookerasbil]

The world will adapt. How? With new technologies........that is, only if the government gets out of the way.

IDK........I learned as a little boy that you dont try fitting a round peg into a square hole., a lesson obviously missed in class by the alarmists. The world will develop new technologies so that one day, this whole debate will be looked back at and laughed at and that there was a small segment of the population advocating for all societies to go back to wodden ships and candlelight and bicycles as the preferred method of transportation.


What will the future course in schools be called?


The Return of the Flat Earthers: Late 1900's to early 2000's.

 

[mamooth]

that there was a small segment of the population advocating for all societies to go back to wodden ships and candlelight and bicycles as the preferred method of transportation.

That segment being the denialists, the premier screaming alarmists of the global warming issue.

Look, none of the rational scientists are calling for people to live in caves. That's solely a denalist fantasy. Why do they constantly resort to such alarmism? Why are they always trying to frighten people with such hysterical claims?

Here on the rational side, we want so much green energy that people waste it in great profusion. That's our vision of the future. Compare that to the denialist vision of living in caves.