Impacts of Arctic thaw

[Sunsettommy]

Note the fakery s0ns......post above.

"trending down"

"Heat"

"dropping"

Semantic gheyness used by every climate crusader nutter these days in every post....purposefully so. Terms that never answer the question, "As compared to what?"

"Trending down" conveys doom....until you take a gander at the previous #'s. Statistical fakery with loose terms is ghey.

I can take my Mustang to the track and return and tell everybody, "I was alot faster!". But I only pick up 2 tenths and trapped at 116. Fake.....but "faster" sure sounds impressive! The dim fail to ask the question, "What did you run last time out?"

Progressives pull these faggy stunts all the time.

He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003.

Arctic summer sea ice now growing 12 years

Our Japanese skeptic blogger and good friend Kirye reports using the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) that peak summer Arctic sea ice volume upward growth trend has been extended yet another year – now 12 years.



Chart by Kirye. Data source: Danish Meteorology Institute (DMI).

 

[Billy_Bob]

Note the fakery s0ns......post above.

"trending down"

"Heat"

"dropping"

Semantic gheyness used by every climate crusader nutter these days in every post....purposefully so. Terms that never answer the question, "As compared to what?"

"Trending down" conveys doom....until you take a gander at the previous #'s. Statistical fakery with loose terms is ghey.

I can take my Mustang to the track and return and tell everybody, "I was alot faster!". But I only pick up 2 tenths and trapped at 116. Fake.....but "faster" sure sounds impressive! The dim fail to ask the question, "What did you run last time out?"

Progressives pull these faggy stunts all the time.

He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003.

Arctic summer sea ice now growing 12 years

Our Japanese skeptic blogger and good friend Kirye reports using the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) that peak summer Arctic sea ice volume upward growth trend has been extended yet another year – now 12 years.



Chart by Kirye. Data source: Danish Meteorology Institute (DMI).

The poor cat couldn't claw its way out of a wet paper bag.. Thank You for showing a region that is most certainly growing in ice.

There are a few here that use ambiguous graphs without context. This is why I explicitly said "regions". It goes right over their collective heads every time..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well... sea ice increase has already begun in most regions and did so three weeks ago. Silly me, looking at empirical evidence and believing it...

No, sea ice levels are still dropping, and will continue for the next few weeks. You faked that claim, same way as you fake everything. That's why everyone now correctly assumes anything you say is fraudulent.

It is correct that the NW passage won't be open this year. The central CAA (Canadian Arctic Archipelago) passage is blocked, and the small craft that were trying to run the NW passage are turning around and leaving the Arctic.The heat has been on the Russian side and the high Arctic, will the CAA being cooler. Plus, the unusually mobile and fractured ice in the high Arctic has come pouring through the Parry Channel and into the CAA this year, replacing the ice that melted out. Each year brings something different, but the trend is inexorably down.

So we've still been right about every single thing, while deniers still maintain their perfect failure record.

Again, I said in most REGIONS... which you chose to ignore...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets throw some nice cold water on Old Crocks wet dream OP..

First of all the paper in and of itself is highly questionable as the recording methods of methane release do not work in cold climates. they had to make massive assumptions through modeling.

Arctic Methane Leaks Go Undetected Because Equipment Can’t Handle the Cold

Knowing this limitation, the authors of the paper made huge adjustments to further enrich their agenda. They however refused to make hard claims as to what the end result would be should it continue. They list papers about the five known ice free times in the arctic in the last 12,000 years who showed there was little to no effect globally from these releases. They also demonstrated the amount of methane below the frost line is far less than stated in this paper.

I refuse to go find all the paper information and citing references as their whole premise is from failed modeling and pure conjecture.

They whole paper is full of 'may' and 'might' which are not scientific terms.

 

[mamooth]

He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003.

A Hello Kitty type blogger is your new go-to source for climate data? Each time we think you deniers can't possibly get more ridiculous, you do.

Meanwhile,the real volume data. See the trend? Down.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

 

[Sunsettommy]

He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003.

A Hello Kitty type blogger is your new go-to source for climate data? Each time we think you deniers can't possibly get more ridiculous, you do.

Meanwhile,the real volume data. See the trend? Down.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Ha ha ha, you completely ignored the DMI chart to post this garbage, PIOMESS the least accurate chart of all.

Even YOUR chart show the decline stopped in Fall 2009.

 

[mamooth]

Ha ha ha, you completely ignored the DMI chart to post this garbage,

What DMI chart? You only showed what a Hello Kitty twitter account said.

PIOMESS the least accurate chart of all.

Do you have any arguments anywhere that go beyond "Because I say so!"?

Even YOUR chart show the decline stopped in Fall 2009.

And you can't read a simple graph. No wonder you get every single thing so hilariously wrong.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another “Ship of Fools” gets grounded in Arctic ice, needs rescue

Ship of fools Part 3

You cant make this shit up.. A left wing group was counting on an ice-less arctic... They are now trapped! IN ICE!!!!

I love it when empirical evidence bites these dumb-asses in the ass...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

LOL...

Your second chart show natural variation and the cyclical cycle and were now cooling globally. Ice is going to increase and there isn't a thing the alarmist can do about it...

 

[Sunsettommy]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

LOL...

Your second chart show natural variation and the cyclical cycle and were now cooling globally. Ice is going to increase and there isn't a thing the alarmist can do about it...

He doesn't seem to realize that for long periods of time in the Early Holocene up to the MWP that there were a lot of summers with little to no ice in it, yet the Polar Bears are here and the world went on without any terrible repercussions from it.

 

[Old Rocks]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

LOL...

Your second chart show natural variation and the cyclical cycle and were now cooling globally. Ice is going to increase and there isn't a thing the alarmist can do about it...

He doesn't seem to realize that for long periods of time in the Early Holocene up to the MWP that there were a lot of summers with little to no ice in it, yet the Polar Bears are here and the world went on without any terrible repercussions from it.

Link?

 

[Old Rocks]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

Ye Gods and little fishes. Such dumbfuckery on your part. Yes, the decline stopped in 1986, because it was higher than 1982. And the decline stopped in 1993, because the ice was higher than in 1990. And so on. The fact that you even tried to make that argument is an indication of a very stupid liar.

 

[mamooth]

Ship of fools Part 3

Here, Billy Bob and WUWT can't figure out the difference between "ice" and "ground". A Russian ship _grounded_, and Billy is shrieking they're trapped in ice.

You cant make this shit up..

Agreed. Each time you think deniers can't possible get any dumber, they surprise you.

 

[mamooth]

You never seen DMI before?

You apparently haven't, because you can't post their actual figures.

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

So, you're sticking with "BECAUSE I SAY SO!". At least you're consistent.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

As cherrypicking fallacies go, that's really dumb. The trend is unmistakable. You're pretending you can't recognize a very obvious trend. As nobody is actually stupid enough to fail to see the trend, those who do pretend not to see it see it come across as dishonest.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

And as we go back further, any sign of your magic 60-year cycles is completely absent, meaning your theory fails hard.

| National Snow and Ice Data Center

If you had bothered to read the link I posted,

you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

If your theory was valid, the "cycles" would have consisted of more than one single up-and-down. They don't. Your theory is just cherrypicking and mathturbation. Nearly any data set will show an up and down somewhere, but that doesn't mean it's part of an ongoing cycle.

 

[skookerasbil]

The ice expanse in the Arctic is increasing. Plain as the nose on your face. End of story.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The ice expanse in the Arctic is increasing. Plain as the nose on your face. End of story.

In the words of the soup nazi.... "No Northwest passage for you"

It is now almost totally ice locked...

And it appears like were very close to bottoming out as ice area melt has all but stopped and the ice is building again..

 

[Sunsettommy]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

LOL...

Your second chart show natural variation and the cyclical cycle and were now cooling globally. Ice is going to increase and there isn't a thing the alarmist can do about it...

He doesn't seem to realize that for long periods of time in the Early Holocene up to the MWP that there were a lot of summers with little to no ice in it, yet the Polar Bears are here and the world went on without any terrible repercussions from it.

Link?

I GAVE you links to papers a few times already, here is a BLOCK LINK one more time that has a few published papers and reports in it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You never seen DMI before?

PIOMESS is the favorite choice for warmist loons since it shows the worst possible claim, while all the others show less ice loss.

You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:

View attachment 213310

It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010.

Now if we go back to 1900, you can see a similar low point in the 1920's/1930's

View attachment 213311

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you would have learned that changes in the AMO SEA SURFACE temperature is the dominant cause of the changes in the ice pack size.

Ye Gods and little fishes. Such dumbfuckery on your part. Yes, the decline stopped in 1986, because it was higher than 1982. And the decline stopped in 1993, because the ice was higher than in 1990. And so on. The fact that you even tried to make that argument is an indication of a very stupid liar.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

No I didn't lie since YOU just pointed out other small trends while ignoring my correct statement as I made abundantly clear in post 28, when I expanded the chart.

Here is what I wrote then,

"You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart:"

Here is another chart with just the time frame from 2007 onward:

and this based on Masie and SII data:

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate crusaders dont like looking at satellite pictures