Artic sea ice has not recovered

[Luddly Neddite]

No, Arctic Sea Ice Has Not Recovered, Scientists Say | Climate Central

Arctic sea ice extent has reached its seasonal minimum, dropping to the sixth-lowest level in the 35-year satellite record. This year’s melt represents a significant gain in sea ice extent from last year — when the ice cover plummeted to a record low — but scientists cautioned that long-term trends are what is most important, with most projections still showing a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean by the middle of the century, if not sooner. In addition, measurements of sea ice volume are at near-record low levels, indicating that the ice cover is unusually thin and vulnerable....

For much of the 2013 melt season, low pressure dominated the Central Arctic Ocean and Greenland, leading to cloudier and cooler conditions compared to previous years that had greater declines in sea ice. Average air temperatures were below average over most of the central Arctic Ocean and Greenland this summer, a dramatic contrast to the much warmer-than-average conditions that prevailed during the six previous years.

The summers of 2007 to 2012 were dominated by a weather pattern that helped transport warm air into the Arctic, with a high pressure area over the Beaufort Sea and Greenland, and low pressure over Eurasia, the NSIDC reported.

However, even with the cooler conditions this summer, sea ice extent still dropped into the top 10 lowest on record.

“. . . We still ended up as sixthh lowest, so it reflects that even with a weather pattern that is not favorable for ice loss, you still have low ice conditions — certainly no rebound to conditions in the 1980s/1990s,” Stroeve said. “I suppose if we now had several summers in a row like this one, we could temporarily rebuild the icepack.”

Interactive map at link.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yawn.

The IPCC left you high and dry

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yawn.

The IPCC left you high and dry

Apparently, you believe that posting photographic evidence of catastrophic climate change supports the opposite opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Yawn.

The IPCC left you high and dry

Apparently, you believe that posting photographic evidence of catastrophic climate change supports the opposite opinion.

It's an example of the kind of sleazy propaganda your side produces.

 

[bripat9643]

Who ever claimed the polar ice cap had returned to the same extent as in the period 1965-1980?

 

[Sunni Man]

No worries mate......Obama will fix it. ..

 

[mamooth]

 

[Abraham3]

Who ever claimed the polar ice cap had returned to the same extent as in the period 1965-1980?

Deniers have been posting headlines all over creation about that RECORD increase in ice extent. You did so yourself, didn't you.

 

[bripat9643]

The source of your graph is skepticalscience.com, an AGW propaganda site. They are about as credible as Hillary Clinton's skill at trading cattle futures.

 

[bripat9643]

Who ever claimed the polar ice cap had returned to the same extent as in the period 1965-1980?

Deniers have been posting headlines all over creation about that RECORD increase in ice extent. You did so yourself, didn't you.

Yes, and that isn't the same as claiming that the extent of the ice cap had returned to some mythical ideal number of square kilometers.

 

[PredFan]

One side shows scientific evidence and calls the other side's evidence "junk science". And vice versa.

Here's a clue for the AGW fanatics: Scientists are for sale. Have been for decades.

So how do you tell what is truth from bull shit? Use your own brains:

The sun is the overwhelming influence on our climate.

The Ice Caps and Glaciers have been advancing and retreating for millenia.

They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.

They have committed fraud in the name of Climate Change.

Climate Change is a politically charged issue.

The only answer the believers have is socialism and control of people's actions.

Normal intelligent people should be able to put these facts together, using their own brains, and come up with the logical answer.

 

[Abraham3]

One side shows scientific evidence and calls the other side's evidence "junk science". And vice versa.

That's true save that for the most part, one side's accusations are correct while the other's are not

Here's a clue for the AGW fanatics:

And so we abandon the objective search for truth.

Scientists are for sale. Have been for decades.

Do you have evidence of that? Do you have evidence that justifies you making an enormous generalization? Do you have evidence that they are only for sale going in one direction? That would be no, no and no.

So how do you tell what is truth from bull shit? Use your own brains:

Good idea.

The sun is the overwhelming influence on our climate.

Really? But we're talking about CHANGE here, aren't we? The sun hasn't CHANGED enough to have caused the climate CHANGE we've watched take place.

Aren't you proud of me? I used my own brain for that.

The Ice Caps and Glaciers have been advancing and retreating for millenia.

That's not quite true. They have been doing so for millions of years. Billions actually. But the point here is that they are retreating everywhere and at a rapid pace. The cause of their retreat is the increasing temperatures we've experienced over the last 150 years; that measly insignificant 0.9C. The result of all that has been a decreased albedo for the planet and thus even more solar energy trapped here rather than reflected away into space.

They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Who is "they" and what technical significance are you able to make from that point?

They have committed fraud in the name of Climate Change.

Who has? Can you cite the convictions? What do you mean "in the name of Climate Change"?

Climate Change is a politically charged issue.

Apparently. Let me take a wild guess: you tend to vote Republican.

The only answer the believers have is socialism and control of people's actions.

I don't know where you get socialism - you could explain yourself if you like. But that "control of people's actions" bit? They've got a name for it. "Laws" they call 'em. L A W S. Nations use them to control the actions of people within their borders. Most places - particularly the democratic ones - they work pretty well.

Normal intelligent people should be able to put these facts together, using their own brains, and come up with the logical answer.

I have put your comments together, used my own brain and have come up with the logical answer: Your argument doesn't even rise to the level of junk science. You don't know what you're talking about (on a technical basis) and your uninformed opinion is based on nothing BUT political biases.

So, how'd I do?

 

[Abraham3]

Who ever claimed the polar ice cap had returned to the same extent as in the period 1965-1980?

Deniers have been posting headlines all over creation about that RECORD increase in ice extent. You did so yourself, didn't you.

Yes, and that isn't the same as claiming that the extent of the ice cap had returned to some mythical ideal number of square kilometers.

I'm not sure that I've heard anyone make such a claim of anyone making such a claim

;-).

What do you believe is going to happen to the Arctic and Antarctic ice over, say, the next 50 years? If you could, you could treat them separately.

 

[Abraham3]

The source of your graph is skepticalscience.com, an AGW propaganda site. They are about as credible as Hillary Clinton's skill at trading cattle futures.

Hillary Clinton was extraordinarily successful at trading cattle futures. You have thus stated that the boys at skepticalscience.com are extraordinarily skilled.

Bravo. You got something right.

 

[PredFan]

One side shows scientific evidence and calls the other side's evidence "junk science". And vice versa.

That's true save that for the most part, one side's accusations are correct while the other's are not

Here's a clue for the AGW fanatics:

And so we abandon the objective search for truth.



Do you have evidence of that? Do you have evidence that justifies you making an enormous generalization? Do you have evidence that they are only for sale going in one direction? That would be no, no and no.



Good idea.



Really? But we're talking about CHANGE here, aren't we? The sun hasn't CHANGED enough to have caused the climate CHANGE we've watched take place.

Aren't you proud of me? I used my own brain for that.



That's not quite true. They have been doing so for millions of years. Billions actually. But the point here is that they are retreating everywhere and at a rapid pace. The cause of their retreat is the increasing temperatures we've experienced over the last 150 years; that measly insignificant 0.9C. The result of all that has been a decreased albedo for the planet and thus even more solar energy trapped here rather than reflected away into space.



Who is "they" and what technical significance are you able to make from that point?



Who has? Can you cite the convictions? What do you mean "in the name of Climate Change"?



Apparently. Let me take a wild guess: you tend to vote Republican.

The only answer the believers have is socialism and control of people's actions.

I don't know where you get socialism - you could explain yourself if you like. But that "control of people's actions" bit? They've got a name for it. "Laws" they call 'em. L A W S. Nations use them to control the actions of people within their borders. Most places - particularly the democratic ones - they work pretty well.

Normal intelligent people should be able to put these facts together, using their own brains, and come up with the logical answer.

I have put your comments together, used my own brain and have come up with the logical answer: Your argument doesn't even rise to the level of junk science. You don't know what you're talking about (on a technical basis) and your uninformed opinion is based on nothing BUT political biases.

So, how'd I do?

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

Look pal, if you cannot be bothered to even do any kind of research for yourself, and all you do is regurgitate the AGW talking points, then really, you kind of take yourself out of the discussion.

 

[PredFan]

Deniers have been posting headlines all over creation about that RECORD increase in ice extent. You did so yourself, didn't you.

Yes, and that isn't the same as claiming that the extent of the ice cap had returned to some mythical ideal number of square kilometers.

I'm not sure that I've heard anyone make such a claim of anyone making such a claim

;-).

What do you believe is going to happen to the Arctic and Antarctic ice over, say, the next 50 years? If you could, you could treat them separately.

It will expand or contract just like it has been for the past 50, 500, 5000 years.

 

[PredFan]

Ignoring the AGW fanatics, here's some additional facts for those with more rational minds:

Scientists are for sale. Always have been, probably always will be.

For example (and I know I will piss some people off here) the Creationists have scientists on their side who will swear that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. Tobacco companies for many years had scientists and doctors who claimed that there was no link between tobacco and lung disease. As long as scientists can make a boatload of money from a benefactor with an agenda, there will be those who will be glad to do so.

Now, the DNC controlled government wants the control that the Climate Change Scam will provide, and they have an almost unlimited supply of money to fund the research....well, you connect the dots.

 

[Abraham3]

You should educate yourself.

I have a bachelors in engineering. I have had an interest in global warming for at least the last five years. Having seen the structure and content of your argument, I am not overly concerned about keeping up with you.

For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

Yes, it has... making it even less likely that it's responsible for the last 150 years warming. Do you have some other source to suggest?

Look pal

You can call me what you like, but as of yet, we're not pals.

if you cannot be bothered to even do any kind of research for yourself, and all you do is regurgitate the AGW talking points, then really, you kind of take yourself out of the discussion.

I completely pwned you on every point you made (if you could really call them "points") and you think I'M the one needful of research? [shakes head] You need a reality check, dude. And let me give you a little hint: they're talking points because they're true. Yours aren't because they aren't.

 

[mamooth]

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

You seem to be implying low solar activity is causing the current warming.

Could you expand upon that theory? How does less solar activity cause warming?