Global sea ice

[RollingThunder]

...I could care less about the science....

LOLOLOL....everybody knows that, kooker.....that's why your posts are so deranged and idiotic and meaningless.

 

[skookerasbil]

From New York Times.........on Greenland Ice..............


Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive.

As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas - NYTimes.com




Oooooooooooops!!!!



Once again, the k00ks have to take their bats and balls and go home!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Laugh my fcukking balls off....................

The k00ks throw around the term "meaningless" in this forum???!!!!!


Meaningless is having a debate about #'s. THATS meaningless.............in fact, can anybody think of anything more meaningless?


For a minimum of the next 10 years, any debate over world temperatures is FCUKKING MEANINGLESS s0ns!!!! Those who dont understand why have the political IQ of a handball!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/new-hampshire-smacks-down-cap-and-trade/,,,,,its not 2007 anymore assholes!!!!


Now......lets go and backtrack on the thread and identify the idiots ( actually, they are pretty damn smart..............just mental cases. There is a difference!!!!)

 

[westwall]

And here's another idiotic, history distorting, denier cult myth from a couple of very clueless deniers.

Unlike you denier cult fruitcakes, I actually look things up and find out the facts. Accurate historical and scientific information on the Vikings in Greenland can be easily googled up by anyone who chooses to investigate the matter and not just believe some distorted junk from some talk radio moron.

A moderate regional warming called the MWP made the barely habitable southern fringes of Greenland, where the Gulf Stream current passes, slightly more habitable for about four centuries. Calling it 'Greenland' was just some PR cooked up by a murderer who was exiled from Iceland, which was itself already the pits where Norway exiled people for murder, so he had to go even farther out into the boonies and wound up sailing along the southern coast of this recently discovered, un-named, mostly ice covered land mass and found a somewhat sheltered fiord that was still pretty cold by our standards and barely sub-arctic in climate and vegetation. He wanted other people to join him there so he gave the place a cheery name and since it wasn't all that much different from what the folks were used to in Iceland, they fell for it and a few thousand moved there and settled in only three small areas around three fiords on the southern and southwestern coasts. Farming was difficult but these people mostly raised cattle, hunted and fished plus carrying on a lively trade with Iceland and mainland Europe. Greenland was still more than 80% ice covered during that time, just as it is now.

Greenland Vikings
(excerpts)

In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming. Nevertheless, Eric was able to draw thousands to the three areas shown in Fig. 15.

Figure 15: Ancient Norse settlements. (Source: Bryson, 1977)

The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests. During the MWP, Greenland's climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October. Before the year 1300, ships regularly sailed from Norway and other European countries to Greenland bringing with them timber, iron, corn, salt, and other needed items. Trade was by barter. Greenlanders offered butter, cheese, wool, and their frieze cloths, which were greatly sough after in Europe, as well as white and blue fox furs, polar bear skins, walrus and narwhal tusks, and walrus skins. In fact, two Greenland items in particular were prized by Europeans: white bears and the white falcon. These items were given as royal gifts. For instance, the King of Norway-Denmark sent a number of Greenland falcons as a gift to the King of Portugal, and received in return the gift of a cargo of wine (Stefansson, 1966.) Because of the shortage of adequate vegetables and cereal grains, and a shortage of timber to make ships, the trade link to Iceland and Europe was vital (Hermann, 1954.)

Scott A. Mandia
Professor - Physical Sciences

(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.)

You need some more current research on the Vikings mate.

Why? Nothing you're saying here differs that much from the material I posted. Actually the most "current research" would indicate a smaller population than your figures.
"Population estimates vary from highs of only 2000 to as many as 10,000 people. More recent estimates such as that of Professor Niels Lynnerup in Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, ed. by William W. Fitzhugh and Elisabeth I. Ward, have tended toward the lower figure."

They existed as a colony for over 500 years. At least 300 or those years they prospered. In other words longer then the US has been around. Nutritionally they were better off then their Dane, Swede and Icelandic counterparts because they lacked grain so didn't have to worry about the deleterious effects of beer and bread (all things that make folks fat today) but instead enjoyed a diet based on grasses and meat.

When the Vikings converted to Christianity the colony was able to support a cathedral a Augustinian monastery and a Benedictine convent, not to mention the twelve other churches. Not bloody likely in a marginal situation. There were over 200 farms in the main settlement.

The grasses that the cattle fed on are particularly nutritious so they prospered. This leads to estimates of the Viking population from a low of around 3,000 to a high of over 11,000.
Not too bad when one considers the total number of Vikings living in Iceland never topped 40,000 or 60,000 in Norway. Only the Danes and the Swedes developed larger populations.

As usual when presented with facts that disagree with your pre concieved notions you try and rewrite history.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf

So what? During a period of regional warming called the MWP portions of Greenland's southern coast became marginally habitable for a few centuries. Temperatures in the Arctic were not as high as they are now and the ice sheet wasn't melting then like it is now and that is really the point. All of your denier cult babble about "the Vikings were farming in Greeenland" doesn't actually show anything to challenge the fact that the ice sheet has been stable for tens of thousands of years and is only now beginning to seriously melt.

Greenland ice sheet


***

The MWP was not regional. Ebverywhere that scientists have looked for evidence of it it has been found. Both northern and southern hemispheres. Here in the Sierra Nevada mountains the average temp was 2.5 degrees warmer duringthe MWP.

Nice attempt to rewrite history...something you folks seem to do on a regular basis.

 

[RollingThunder]

You need some more current research on the Vikings mate.

Why? Nothing you're saying here differs that much from the material I posted. Actually the most "current research" would indicate a smaller population than your figures.
"Population estimates vary from highs of only 2000 to as many as 10,000 people. More recent estimates such as that of Professor Niels Lynnerup in Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, ed. by William W. Fitzhugh and Elisabeth I. Ward, have tended toward the lower figure."

They existed as a colony for over 500 years. At least 300 or those years they prospered. In other words longer then the US has been around. Nutritionally they were better off then their Dane, Swede and Icelandic counterparts because they lacked grain so didn't have to worry about the deleterious effects of beer and bread (all things that make folks fat today) but instead enjoyed a diet based on grasses and meat.

As usual when presented with facts that disagree with your pre concieved notions you try and rewrite history.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf

So what? During a period of regional warming called the MWP portions of Greenland's southern coast became marginally habitable for a few centuries. Temperatures in the Arctic were not as high as they are now and the ice sheet wasn't melting then like it is now and that is really the point. All of your denier cult babble about "the Vikings were farming in Greeenland" doesn't actually show anything to challenge the fact that the ice sheet has been stable for tens of thousands of years and is only now beginning to seriously melt.

Greenland ice sheet


***

The MWP was not regional. Ebverywhere that scientists have looked for evidence of it it has been found. Both northern and southern hemispheres. Here in the Sierra Nevada mountains the average temp was 2.5 degrees warmer duringthe MWP.

Nice attempt to rewrite history...something you folks seem to do on a regular basis.

Well, that "global MWP" myth is one of your most cherished denier cult myths so it is not surprising that you're holding on to it even though the actual scientific research into it doesn't agree. Moreover, the research indicates that the warmest period during the MWP is thought to have been 0.35C cooler than the average temperature from 1970-2000.


Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz
Science
17 October 2003:
Vol. 302 no. 5644 pp. 404-405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.


IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
2.3.3 Was there a "Little Ice Age" and a "Medieval Warm Period"?

The terms "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. With the more widespread proxy data and multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature change now available, the spatial and temporal character of these putative climate epochs can be reassessed.

Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall. However, viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Cold conditions appear, however, to have been considerably more pronounced in particular regions. Such regional variability can be understood in part as reflecting accompanying changes in atmospheric circulation. The "Little Ice Age" appears to have been most clearly expressed in the North Atlantic region as altered patterns of atmospheric circulation (O'Brien et al., 1995). Unusually cold, dry winters in central Europe (e.g., 1 to 2°C below normal during the late 17th century) were very likely to have been associated with more frequent flows of continental air from the north-east (Wanner et al., 1995; Pfister, 1999). Such conditions are consistent (Luterbacher et al., 1999) with the negative or enhanced easterly wind phase of the NAO (Sections 2.2.2.3 and 2.6.5), which implies both warm and cold anomalies over different regions in the North Atlantic sector. Such strong influences on European temperature demonstrate the difficulty in extrapolating the sparse early information about European climate change to the hemispheric, let alone global, scale. While past changes in the NAO have likely had an influence in eastern North America, changes in the El Niño phenomenon (see also Section 2.6), are likely to have had a particularly significant influence on regional temperature patterns over North America.

The hemispherically averaged coldness of the 17th century largely reflected cold conditions in Eurasia, while cold hemispheric conditions in the 19th century were more associated with cold conditions in North America (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 2000b). So, while the coldest decades of the 19th century appear to have been approximately 0.6 to 0.7°C colder than the latter decades of the 20th century in the hemispheric mean (Mann et al., 1998), the coldest decades for the North American continent were closer to 1.5°C colder (Mann et al., 2000b). In addition, the timing of peak coldness was often specific to particular seasons. In Switzerland, for example, the first particularly cold winters appear to have been in the 1560s, with cold springs beginning around 1568, and with 1573 the first unusually cold summer (Pfister, 1995).

The evidence for temperature changes in past centuries in the Southern Hemisphere is quite sparse. What evidence is available at the hemispheric scale for summer (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean conditions (Mann et al., 2000b) suggests markedly different behaviour from the Northern Hemisphere. The only obvious similarity is the unprecedented warmth of the late 20th century. Speleothem evidence (isotopic evidence from calcite deposition in stalagmites and stalactites) from South Africa indicates anomalously cold conditions only prior to the 19th century, while speleothem (records derived from analysing stalagmites and stalagtites) and glacier evidence from the Southern Alps of New Zealand suggests cold conditions during the mid-17th and mid-19th centuries (Salinger, 1995). Dendroclimatic evidence from nearby Tasmania (Cook et al., 2000) shows no evidence of unusual coldness at these times. Differences in the seasons most represented by this proxy information prevent a more direct comparison.

As with the "Little Ice Age", the posited "Medieval Warm Period" appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures. The long-term hemispheric trend is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around 1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming. Regional evidence is, however, quite variable. Crowley and Lowery (2000) show that western Greenland exhibited anomalous warmth locally only around AD 1000 (and to a lesser extent, around AD 1400), with quite cold conditions during the latter part of the 11th century, while Scandinavian summer temperatures appeared relatively warm only during the 11th and early 12th centuries. Crowley and Lowery (2000) find no evidence for warmth in the tropics. Regional evidence for medieval warmth elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere is so variable that eastern, yet not western, China appears to have been warm by 20th century standards from the 9th to 13th centuries. The 12th and 14th centuries appear to have been mainly cold in China (Wang et al., 1998a,b; Wang and Gong, 2000). The restricted evidence from the Southern Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period.

Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability. The Bermuda rise sediment record of Keigwin (1996) suggests warm medieval conditions and cold 17th to 19th century conditions in the Sargasso Sea of the tropical North Atlantic. A sediment record just south of Newfoundland (Keigwin and Pickart, 1999), in contrast, indicates cold medieval and warm 16th to 19th century upper ocean temperatures. Keigwin and Pickart (1999) suggest that these temperature contrasts were associated with changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic. They argue that the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" in the Atlantic region may in large measure reflect century-scale changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (see Section 2.6). Such regional changes in oceanic and atmospheric processes, which are also relevant to the natural variability of the climate on millennial and longer time-scales (see Section 2.4.2), are greatly diminished or absent in their influence on hemispheric or global mean temperatures.

(not under copyright - free to reprint)

 

[Trakar]

...Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive.

As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas - NYTimes.com
...

You may not realize it, but newspapers, even august bastions of journalistic integrity such as the New York Times (did the sarcasm come through okay?) are generally not accorded much scientific gravitas in regards to their reportage.

In this particular case, through what was, no doubt, a momentary lapse, your plucking of the above phrase out of the context which the reporter used in the enclosing paragraph, removed much of what little scientific accuracy the piece contained. Done deliberately, such an act might be considered "cherry-picking," but I am sure that such was not your intent.

Looking at the entire paragraph we see:

"...Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive. But, they say, it could just as easily be an underestimate as an overestimate. One of the deans of American coastal studies, Orrin H. Pilkey of Duke University, is advising coastal communities to plan for a rise of at least five feet by 2100..."

Which seems to have a much different implication than your more abbreviated posting response.

 

[RollingThunder]

"meaningless"!!!!!

...in fact, can anybody think of anything more meaningless?

assholes!!!!....idiots....mental cases.

I can't think of anything more meaningless than your posts, kooker. That's a fact.

Although this last one, when properly edited, is a nice summation of your whole little deranged denier cult .

 

[konradv]

...Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive.

As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas - NYTimes.com
...

You may not realize it, but newspapers, even august bastions of journalistic integrity such as the New York Times (did the sarcasm come through okay?) are generally not accorded much scientific gravitas in regards to their reportage.

In this particular case, through what was, no doubt, a momentary lapse, your plucking of the above phrase out of the context which the reporter used in the enclosing paragraph, removed much of what little scientific accuracy the piece contained. Done deliberately, such an act might be considered "cherry-picking," but I am sure that such was not your intent.

Looking at the entire paragraph we see:

"...Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive. But, they say, it could just as easily be an underestimate as an overestimate. One of the deans of American coastal studies, Orrin H. Pilkey of Duke University, is advising coastal communities to plan for a rise of at least five feet by 2100..."
Which seems to have a much different implication than your more abbreviated posting response.

The implication seems to be that things could be worse. How does that help your theory?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Update

Despite numerous challenges, none of the Warmers has ever posted a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things they allege.

 

[RollingThunder]

Update

Despite numerous challenges, none of the Warmers has ever posted a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things they allege.

Update: CrustyFrankfurter is still clueless and very ignorant. No surprise.

From Dr Roy Spenser, one of the very few actual climate scientists considered a 'skeptic' regarding AGW.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Trakar]

...The implication seems to be that things could be worse. How does that help your theory?

Which theory would that be?

 

[konradv]

...The implication seems to be that things could be worse. How does that help your theory?

Which theory would that be?

Poor posting on my part. I believe I was addressing skook's post not yours.

 

[Trakar]

...The implication seems to be that things could be worse. How does that help your theory?

Which theory would that be?

Poor posting on my part. I believe I was addressing skook's post not yours.

No problem, at all, as a species we tend to kill those members who seem too perfect! It should be an issue of self-preservation to commit some error or mistake at least once a day!

(If you're lucky like me, you don't have to worry about trying to remember to due this, it's a natural gift!)

 

[Old Rocks]

There is the distinct possibility that even the 'alarmist' predictions of the sea level rise, about 2 m, may well be way too conservative. Two areas that we do not have a good understanding are the reactions of the Permafrost areas, and that of the shallow Arctic Ocean clathrates. Both are reacting more strongly than anyone predicted. Particularly the Yedoma in Siberia, right where we are presently seeing the most warming.

 

[percysunshine]

When are y'all going to cotton on to the fact that global warming is causing tornados?

 

[Trakar]

There is the distinct possibility that even the 'alarmist' predictions of the sea level rise, about 2 m, may well be way too conservative. Two areas that we do not have a good understanding are the reactions of the Permafrost areas, and that of the shallow Arctic Ocean clathrates. Both are reacting more strongly than anyone predicted. Particularly the Yedoma in Siberia, right where we are presently seeing the most warming.

Alarmist, is getting all worked up about something that has no potential to occur, like the Rapture. Talking about things that are demonstrated to have a high likelihood of occurrence unless some relatively unlikely event occurs, doesn't even fit into the alarmism category of consideration.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Update

Despite numerous challenges, none of the Warmers has ever posted a single repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the things they allege.

Update: CrustyFrankfurter is still clueless and very ignorant. No surprise.

From Dr Roy Spenser, one of the very few actual climate scientists considered a 'skeptic' regarding AGW.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

And that what we get instead of controlled experiments. In other words AGW is phrenology

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is the distinct possibility that even the 'alarmist' predictions of the sea level rise, about 2 m, may well be way too conservative. Two areas that we do not have a good understanding are the reactions of the Permafrost areas, and that of the shallow Arctic Ocean clathrates. Both are reacting more strongly than anyone predicted. Particularly the Yedoma in Siberia, right where we are presently seeing the most warming.

You don't have a good understanding about anything

 

[RollingThunder]

There is the distinct possibility that even the 'alarmist' predictions of the sea level rise, about 2 m, may well be way too conservative. Two areas that we do not have a good understanding are the reactions of the Permafrost areas, and that of the shallow Arctic Ocean clathrates. Both are reacting more strongly than anyone predicted. Particularly the Yedoma in Siberia, right where we are presently seeing the most warming.

You don't have a good understanding about anything

Actually he seems to have a good handle on it. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant, clueless retard blowing smoke out your ass about stuff you don't understand at all.