Artic sea ice has not recovered

[Old Rocks]

We will see what happens next year. The volume and depth of the sea ice hasn't recovered and the one year ice really is dictated by weather.

This is why one year can see a huge lose and the next can look like it is recovering. Look at the long term trend.

About the same as 2008-2009...Weather has over a million square miles of forcing on year to year sea ice in extent.

Now THIS is the chart we ALL ought to be using. The ice VOLUME. Thanks Matthew.

Sure is better than all those propaganda cartoons by ur hack heroes at skepticalscience. Those jerks spend most of their time fabricating ficticious graphs to amuse the pilgrims.

Bad enough that most folks look at those sea ice exte t pics and think thats the actual polar ice cap when its really coloring white a lot of open ocean with as little as 15percent ice cubes floatjng in it.

Ice is a very nonli near indicator kf warming. Cross 32deg by the slightest in either direction and you get dramatic effects. Thats why I dont get hysterical over ice.

Btw The 15percent definiton enhances volatility and drama. And ks the reason that wj ds and currents have such a large effect

Fecal, you dumb ass, that is a graph from the University of Washington.

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

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly averaged ice volume for August 2013 was 5,800 km3. This value is 66% lower than the mean over this period, 76% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.8 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. August ice volume was about 1400 km3 larger than in August of 2012 and within 200 km3 of the 2010 August ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer month was less than in previous years. August ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.

 

[Old Rocks]

The annual revenue of the federal government is millions of times greater than the income of the skeptics who oppose its nefarious scheme to loot and enslave us. Ignoring the potential for the government to scam us is patently absurd.

The mistake all you AGW cultists make is pretending that your so-called "scientists" are immune from the incentives that affect every other person. When AGW is fully discredited, a lot of "climate scientists" will no longer be able to pay their mortgages or make the payments on their BMWs. Why should anyone believe they aren't biased?

The federal government is spending a microscopic fraction of its annual revenue on this issue. And the federal government is not bribing scientists to falsify data or bias their results.

Sure it is. It pays "climate scientists" to produce evidence that man is altering the climate. If a "climate scientist" fails to produce such evidence, no more research grant. No more tenure. No more grad students. No more cushy office. No more BMW. No more nothing.

That "microscopic fraction" comes to billions of dollars. When you have a $3.5 trillion budget, even a tiny piece of it is a lot of money.

And it's not the folks on my side of the argument that are pretending scientists are immune from incentives. The point is that your side has a great deal more money, both to lose and to spend trying to keep it.

Of course you are. You're always claiming skeptical scientists are "bought and paid for" while those on the government dole are pure as the driven snow.

"Our side" does not have a great deal money. Oil companies can't spend their entire gross revenue on bribing climate scientists. They can't even spend a large chunk of the profits. They have shareholders to answer to. Furthermore, the have almost stopped such activities entirely because the cultist nutburgers have given them so much bad publicity for doing it. If there's one thing corporate American hates, it's bad publicity.

At one point, Dr. Lindzen was recieving $2500 a day from the energy companies to testify before Congress. When this was pointed out, they ceased to pay him directly, and used the 'committees' established by the tobacco companies to pay him indirectly. Lindzen is irretrievebly a whore, and people like Watts and the fraudulent 'Lord Monkton' are not scientists at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Dots connected. The same scientists, Singer, Lindzen, and others, that sold their souls for tobacco company money are the same people that are the professional 'skeptics'.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

You're making the mistake of projecting the way your side thinks on to honest people.

I understand. You're used to the company of crooks, so you consider it impossible for people to be honest. That's not how the world works. Your dishonest cult is the exception to the rule.

You looney toon lefties keep telling us we don't have any scientists on our side. Can't keep your lies straight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

You have a few. Some, like Lindzen and Singer, proven whores for corperate money, state that global warming has nothing to do with GHGs. Others, like Dr. Spencer, think that the GHGs have a less important role than what the vast majority of scientists claim.

The first are discounted completely by sane and rational people. The second are asked for the reasons for the present warming, if not from GHGs. Thus far, they have been unable to answer that question.

 

[Abraham3]

The ice has been melting since the 8 degree spike 14,000 years ago.

If all this melting is from a spike, the current melt rate should show the effect trailing off. If it started melting at its current rate, 14,000 years ago, it would not only have become ice free year round over 13,000 years ago, it would have freaking evaporated and turned into the northern Sahara.

Even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster

Care to provide some evidence for that claim?

Be honest and say no.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice has been melting since the 8 degree spike 14,000 years ago.

If all this melting is from a spike, the current melt rate should show the effect trailing off. If it started melting at its current rate, 14,000 years ago, it would not only have become ice free year round over 13,000 years ago, it would have freaking evaporated and turned into the northern Sahara.

Even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster

Care to provide some evidence for that claim?

Be honest and say no.

This is what melted. Clearly it didn't ALL melt because the temperature only increased 8 degrees and not 18

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice has been melting since the 8 degree spike 14,000 years ago.

If all this melting is from a spike, the current melt rate should show the effect trailing off. If it started melting at its current rate, 14,000 years ago, it would not only have become ice free year round over 13,000 years ago, it would have freaking evaporated and turned into the northern Sahara.

Even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster

Care to provide some evidence for that claim?

Be honest and say no.

Yes, IPCC Cut their dire, less scientific than astrology, predictions re: CO2 in half

 

[Abraham3]

The ice has been melting since the 8 degree spike 14,000 years ago.

If all this melting is from a spike, the current melt rate should show the effect trailing off. If it started melting at its current rate, 14,000 years ago, it would not only have become ice free year round over 13,000 years ago, it would have freaking evaporated and turned into the northern Sahara.

Even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster

Care to provide some evidence for that claim?

Be honest and say no.

This is what melted. Clearly it didn't ALL melt because the temperature only increased 8 degrees and not 18

You didn't follow me. If the ice began melting 14,000 years ago from a temperature spike of 8C, from which we are just now recovering (else that wouldn't represent the start of the current melting), the melt rate back then must have been even greater than it is now. Yet even if it was only melting at the current rate, it would all have been gone long before the first millenia had passed. Thus the current melt did not begin 14,000 years ago.

Versteht?

And adjusting their predictions given the current hiatus is not "abandoning their glacier-eating CO2 monster".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If all this melting is from a spike, the current melt rate should show the effect trailing off. If it started melting at its current rate, 14,000 years ago, it would not only have become ice free year round over 13,000 years ago, it would have freaking evaporated and turned into the northern Sahara.



Care to provide some evidence for that claim?

Be honest and say no.

This is what melted. Clearly it didn't ALL melt because the temperature only increased 8 degrees and not 18

You didn't follow me. If the ice began melting 14,000 years ago from a temperature spike of 8C, from which we are just now recovering (else that wouldn't represent the start of the current melting), the melt rate back then must have been even greater than it is now. Yet even if it was only melting at the current rate, it would all have been gone long before the first millenia had passed. Thus the current melt did not begin 14,000 years ago.

Versteht?

And adjusting their predictions given the current hiatus is not "abandoning their glacier-eating CO2 monster".

The spike happened 14-12,000 years ago and it was enough to deglaciate North America and gave us 2 polar ice caps. The climate has been relatively stable the past 12,000 years; ice comes and goes.

There are too many variables to say a wisp of CO2 is melting the ice

 

[flacaltenn]

Now THIS is the chart we ALL ought to be using. The ice VOLUME. Thanks Matthew.

Sure is better than all those propaganda cartoons by ur hack heroes at skepticalscience. Those jerks spend most of their time fabricating ficticious graphs to amuse the pilgrims.

Bad enough that most folks look at those sea ice exte t pics and think thats the actual polar ice cap when its really coloring white a lot of open ocean with as little as 15percent ice cubes floatjng in it.

Ice is a very nonli near indicator kf warming. Cross 32deg by the slightest in either direction and you get dramatic effects. Thats why I dont get hysterical over ice.

Btw The 15percent definiton enhances volatility and drama. And ks the reason that wj ds and currents have such a large effect

Fecal, you dumb ass, that is a graph from the University of Washington.

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

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly averaged ice volume for August 2013 was 5,800 km3. This value is 66% lower than the mean over this period, 76% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.8 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. August ice volume was about 1400 km3 larger than in August of 2012 and within 200 km3 of the 2010 August ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer month was less than in previous years. August ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.

Youre the dumberass if u didn't realize I was referring to the previous POS graph from skeptialscience. No one needs your remedial help.

 

[Abraham3]

This is what melted. Clearly it didn't ALL melt because the temperature only increased 8 degrees and not 18

You didn't follow me. If the ice began melting 14,000 years ago from a temperature spike of 8C, from which we are just now recovering (else that wouldn't represent the start of the current melting), the melt rate back then must have been even greater than it is now. Yet even if it was only melting at the current rate, it would all have been gone long before the first millenia had passed. Thus the current melt did not begin 14,000 years ago.

Versteht?

And adjusting their predictions given the current hiatus is not "abandoning their glacier-eating CO2 monster".

The spike happened 14-12,000 years ago and it was enough to deglaciate North America and gave us 2 polar ice caps. The climate has been relatively stable the past 12,000 years; ice comes and goes.

There are too many variables to say a wisp of CO2 is melting the ice

So... as has been the case since I got here - you don't have a clue.

 

[Abraham3]

Youre the dumberass if u didn't realize I was referring to the previous POS graph from skeptialscience. No one needs your remedial help.

These?

These are from NSIDC.

 

[Abraham3]

Or this:

 

[Abraham3]

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this

Nice polar bear shots. Evidence of nothing more than that polar bears are cool and they live in cold places.

 

[skookerasbil]

or this.........

 

[Abraham3]

It astounds me that you can work up the motivation to assemble these posts given their complete absence of value to ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or this:

No not another phoney polar pic.. Nor the graphs you just tossed out.. I'm talking about the shitty propaganda piece you posted a few pages back... The one with the manufactured data showing how "i view the ice melting and recovering"..

BTW --- multiple years of image analysis tells me that bear is lit from two different angles.
But don't let that stop you.. I've already traced that phoney bear back to a publicity release before the last Earth summit.. Photo credit goes to someone from the WWF who has no other nature photog credits.. Just a driver's license for PhotoShop...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You didn't follow me. If the ice began melting 14,000 years ago from a temperature spike of 8C, from which we are just now recovering (else that wouldn't represent the start of the current melting), the melt rate back then must have been even greater than it is now. Yet even if it was only melting at the current rate, it would all have been gone long before the first millenia had passed. Thus the current melt did not begin 14,000 years ago.

Versteht?

And adjusting their predictions given the current hiatus is not "abandoning their glacier-eating CO2 monster".

The spike happened 14-12,000 years ago and it was enough to deglaciate North America and gave us 2 polar ice caps. The climate has been relatively stable the past 12,000 years; ice comes and goes.

There are too many variables to say a wisp of CO2 is melting the ice

So... as has been the case since I got here - you don't have a clue.

The recent major downgrade of IPCC credibility shows the danger of not subjecting the "800ppm CO2 will cause an 8 degree temperature increase" theory to the lab for testing

 

[RollingThunder]

Or this:

BTW --- multiple years of image analysis tells me that bear is lit from two different angles.
But don't let that stop you.. I've already traced that phoney bear back to a publicity release before the last Earth summit.. Photo credit goes to someone from the WWF who has no other nature photog credits.. Just a driver's license for PhotoShop...

BTW --- multiple years of analyzing AGW denier cult bullshit tells me that you have no frigging idea what you're talking about, fecalhead.

So this thread has taken a liking for polar bear pictures? And the clueless fruitcakes think they are all phony? Chew on this then, reality deniers.

A victim of climate change? Polar bear found starved to death looked 'like a rug'
NBC News
By Ian Johnston, Staff Writer, NBC News
Aug 7, 2013
(excerpts)

The male polar bear seemed healthy when he was seen in April on the Arctic island of Svalbard. It starved to death by July. - Ashley Cooper / Global Warming Images

The polar bear’s emaciated body looked more like “a rug” than one of the world’s most powerful predators. For all its hunting prowess, the giant animal appears to have starved to death as it made a desperate journey north on the Arctic island of Svalbard in search of seals. Experts fear polar bears will increasingly suffer a similar fate as global warming melts the sea ice that allows them to hunt for their main source of food. Ian Stirling, who has studied polar bears for nearly 40 years, told The Guardian newspaper that he found the animal on Svalbard in July. “From his lying position in death the bear appears to simply have starved and died where he dropped,” Stirling said. “He had no external suggestion of any remaining fat, having been reduced to little more than skin and bone.” The bear was examined by Norwegian scientists in April about 150 miles south and seemed to be healthy at that time. “Most of the fjords and inter-island channels in Svalbard did not freeze normally last winter and so many potential areas known to that bear for hunting seals in spring do not appear to have been as productive as in a normal winter,” said Stirling, of conservation group Polar Bears International. “As a result the bear likely went looking for food in another area but appears to have been unsuccessful.”

The bear is thought to have been heading north in a desperate search for sea ice that would allow it to hunt for seals. Scientists believe the Arctic could be essentially free of sea ice in September by 2054. - Ashley Cooper / Global Warming Images

A study published in July found that the Arctic could be essentially free of sea ice in September as early as 2054. Polar Bears International says on its website that the bears evolved for a life on sea ice, "which they rely on for reaching their seal prey." The loss of sea ice has meant an increase in drownings and cannibalism, and a general decline in population. Ashley Cooper, the photographer who took the picture, said the sight of the dead polar bear was “desperately sad.” “There was just no fat on it. It was just completely shrunken and shriveled, a very, very skinny specimen of a polar bear,” he said in a telephone interview. “It looked basically like a rug because there was just no weight on it at all.” Cooper said scavengers had not eaten parts of the body and there were no signs of decomposition, which happens slowly in the low temperatures of the Arctic. He said he saw five live polar bears during a 12-day trip to Svalbard in July. Three looked “quite thin and not in great condition” and the only one that looked healthy was hunting on sea ice barely strong enough to support its weight about 550 miles from the North Pole. Cooper said the fate of the bear was “what [all] polar bears have got to look forward to over the next 10 to 20 years.” “There isn’t a future for them unless we can very rapidly get on top of climate change,” he said.

 

[kwc57]

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.

I have an idea. How about all of the global warming fantasy scientists borrow the DNC's herd of flying unicorns and blanket the polar regions with glitter. That will reflect the heat back into space and save the ice. Obama can even say it was his idea unless something goes bad and then he can claim it was Bush's idea.