Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[RollingThunder]

So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!

That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.

A big storm broke up the ice into chunks, leaving much more surface area for the seawater to melt it.

And of course, there have never been any "big storms" in the Arctic before now, right Screwball. 'Cause if there had been, they would have produced the same ice loss as we're seeing now, if your 'theory' is correct.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson (a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."

This concludes today's lesson in "the dynamics of melting ice for dumbshits".

Your post concludes today's example of "dumbshit nonsense from clueless denier cult retards". Thanks for contributing such an excellent example, Screwball.

 

[Oddball]

Right...No matter what happens, it's proof of Goebbels warming.

 

[westwall]

So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!

That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.

A big storm broke up the ice into chunks, leaving much more surface area for the seawater to melt it.

And of course, there have never been any "big storms" in the Arctic before now, right Screwball. 'Cause if there had been, they would have produced the same ice loss as we're seeing now, if your 'theory' is correct.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson (a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."

This concludes today's lesson in "the dynamics of melting ice for dumbshits".

Your post concludes today's example of "dumbshit nonsense from clueless denier cult retards". Thanks for contributing such an excellent example, Screwball.

Vulnerable? It's still there nimrod! Just not in one sheet....though it is allready beginning to freeze back together. Look for massive and record breraking ice sheet coalition.

Also look for the warmists to ignore it.

 

[RollingThunder]

A big storm broke up the ice into chunks, leaving much more surface area for the seawater to melt it.

And of course, there have never been any "big storms" in the Arctic before now, right Screwball. 'Cause if there had been, they would have produced the same ice loss as we're seeing now, if your 'theory' is correct.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson (a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."

This concludes today's lesson in "the dynamics of melting ice for dumbshits".

Your post concludes today's example of "dumbshit nonsense from clueless denier cult retards". Thanks for contributing such an excellent example, Screwball.

Vulnerable?

Are you once again incapable of comprehending simple English, walleyed? I know big words are hard for you so let me help you out here....

Vulnerable - adj.
1. capable of being physically wounded or hurt
2. liable or exposed to disaster

It's still there nimrod! Just not in one sheet....though it is allready(sic) beginning to freeze back together. Look for massive and record breraking(sic) ice sheet coalition. Also look for the warmists to ignore it.

What do you imagine is "still there", walleyedretard? The ice? Sorry, no, you poor confused cretin, the ice melted. It's not "there" anymore. Look for you to be wrong about this like you are about everything else you blovate about.

 

[westwall]

And of course, there have never been any "big storms" in the Arctic before now, right Screwball. 'Cause if there had been, they would have produced the same ice loss as we're seeing now, if your 'theory' is correct.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson (a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."










Your post concludes today's example of "dumbshit nonsense from clueless denier cult retards". Thanks for contributing such an excellent example, Screwball.

Vulnerable?

Are you once again incapable of comprehending simple English, walleyed? I know big words are hard for you so let me help you out here....

Vulnerable - adj.
1. capable of being physically wounded or hurt
2. liable or exposed to disaster

It's still there nimrod! Just not in one sheet....though it is allready(sic) beginning to freeze back together. Look for massive and record breraking(sic) ice sheet coalition. Also look for the warmists to ignore it.

What do you imagine is "still there", walleyedretard? The ice? Sorry, no, you poor confused cretin, the ice melted. It's not "there" anymore. Look for you to be wrong about this like you are about everything else you blovate about.

So, are you just simply batshit crazy or are you reeeeeaaallly this stupid? Enquiring minds (unlike yours) wish to know.

 

[Oddball]

Still trolling..Still blundering...

 

[Noah_raffi]

It is indeed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.

After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.

The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.

 

[westwall]

Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.

After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.

The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.

Looks like normal. The ice is allready freezing back together. Look how quick it's rising allready and it's only a few days into Fall. Methane outgassing? It go's on all the time. It weas a storm that broke the edges off the sheet so once that happens you guys ignore the ice. It's still there you guys just choose to ignore it. Well guess what, it's allready growing back together and even with your corrupt data handling the ice sheet will be bigger and thicker than last year.

So sad for you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.

After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.

The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.

No -- "one clearly see" that SIExtent since 1979 when we had the capability to apply these definitions to satellite measurements "was at a record low".. It's not clear what SIE was in 1938 or in earlier warming spikes.

The waters that were 20% sea ice, 40% sea ice and COUNTED as fully iced in the imagery you were watching "melt" -- were mostly "open water".. Keep your knickers on ...

 

[RollingThunder]

Vulnerable?

Are you once again incapable of comprehending simple English, walleyed? I know big words are hard for you so let me help you out here....

Vulnerable - adj.
1. capable of being physically wounded or hurt
2. liable or exposed to disaster

It's still there nimrod! Just not in one sheet....though it is allready(sic) beginning to freeze back together. Look for massive and record breraking(sic) ice sheet coalition. Also look for the warmists to ignore it.

What do you imagine is "still there", walleyedretard? The ice? Sorry, no, you poor confused cretin, the ice melted. It's not "there" anymore. Look for you to be wrong about this like you are about everything else you blovate about.

So, are you just simply batshit crazy or are you reeeeeaaallly this stupid? Enquiring minds (unlike yours) wish to know.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....so, walleyedretard, how's life in your little fantasy world? It must be nice to just make up any old reality you can imagine and pretend it's real. Too bad you're so batshit crazy and reeeeaaallly stupid, little dude.

Now, back to reality.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This year’s minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. This is an area about the size of the state of Texas. The September 2012 minimum was in turn 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, representing an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. This year’s minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. Overall there was a loss of 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) of ice since the maximum extent occurred on March 20, 2012, which is the largest summer ice extent loss in the satellite record, more than one million square kilometers greater than in any previous year.

Conditions in context

The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.

(Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you once again incapable of comprehending simple English, walleyed? I know big words are hard for you so let me help you out here....

Vulnerable - adj.
1. capable of being physically wounded or hurt
2. liable or exposed to disaster






What do you imagine is "still there", walleyedretard? The ice? Sorry, no, you poor confused cretin, the ice melted. It's not "there" anymore. Look for you to be wrong about this like you are about everything else you blovate about.

So, are you just simply batshit crazy or are you reeeeeaaallly this stupid? Enquiring minds (unlike yours) wish to know.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....so, walleyedretard, how's life in your little fantasy world? It must be nice to just make up any old reality you can imagine and pretend it's real. Too bad you're so batshit crazy and reeeeaaallly stupid, little dude.

Now, back to reality.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This year’s minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. This is an area about the size of the state of Texas. The September 2012 minimum was in turn 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, representing an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. This year’s minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. Overall there was a loss of 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) of ice since the maximum extent occurred on March 20, 2012, which is the largest summer ice extent loss in the satellite record, more than one million square kilometers greater than in any previous year.

Conditions in context

The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.

(Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

but nobody cares s0n........except the internet alarmist nutters.


This is the same old crap the k00ks have been touting for decades now........and it isnt mattering for shit.

 

[RollingThunder]

So, are you just simply batshit crazy or are you reeeeeaaallly this stupid? Enquiring minds (unlike yours) wish to know.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....so, walleyedretard, how's life in your little fantasy world? It must be nice to just make up any old reality you can imagine and pretend it's real. Too bad you're so batshit crazy and reeeeaaallly stupid, little dude.

Now, back to reality.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This year’s minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. This is an area about the size of the state of Texas. The September 2012 minimum was in turn 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, representing an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. This year’s minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. Overall there was a loss of 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) of ice since the maximum extent occurred on March 20, 2012, which is the largest summer ice extent loss in the satellite record, more than one million square kilometers greater than in any previous year.

Conditions in context

The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.

(Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

but nobody cares s0n........except the internet alarmist nutters.
This is the same old crap the k00ks have been touting for decades now........and it isnt mattering for shit.

I suppose nobody does care about this where you live - deep inside Exxon's rectum.

In the real world, most people with more than half a brain do care quite a bit about anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. Shortly, as the climate change catastrophes mount and crop failures raise food prices, almost everyone will care more than a retard like you can imagine.

 

[IanC]

Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.

After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.

The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.

No -- "one clearly see" that SIExtent since 1979 when we had the capability to apply these definitions to satellite measurements "was at a record low".. It's not clear what SIE was in 1938 or in earlier warming spikes.

The waters that were 20% sea ice, 40% sea ice and COUNTED as fully iced in the imagery you were watching "melt" -- were mostly "open water".. Keep your knickers on ...

flac- did you see the article on the methane release that Old Rocks is so worried about? naturally occuring.

on of the turning points in my opinion on climate science was when I read a newspaper account of the sea ice melting around Svaldsburg (sp?) in the early 20's. I checked it out and it was also reported in an american weather report. the water was many degrees warmer, at least 3C, and so much ice had disappeared that sailors couldnt recognize the landscape and fisherman were catching different types of fish. wow, I though, thats got to leave a big mark in the official sea temp history! but when I checked there was nothing.

so were the newspapers wrong? the sailors and fishermen wrong? or was the temperature dataset simply adjusted to 'correct' the obviously 'wrong' temperature readings from the past?

it is still happening. every new algorithm for correcting and splicing temperature readings from the past wipes out a few more 'inconsistencies' and leads to a smoother and higher trend in rising temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....so, walleyedretard, how's life in your little fantasy world? It must be nice to just make up any old reality you can imagine and pretend it's real. Too bad you're so batshit crazy and reeeeaaallly stupid, little dude.

Now, back to reality.

Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This year’s minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007. This is an area about the size of the state of Texas. The September 2012 minimum was in turn 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, representing an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. This year’s minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. Overall there was a loss of 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) of ice since the maximum extent occurred on March 20, 2012, which is the largest summer ice extent loss in the satellite record, more than one million square kilometers greater than in any previous year.

Conditions in context

The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.

(Use and Copyright - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

but nobody cares s0n........except the internet alarmist nutters.
This is the same old crap the k00ks have been touting for decades now........and it isnt mattering for shit.

I suppose nobody does care about this where you live - deep inside Exxon's rectum.

In the real world, most people with more than half a brain do care quite a bit about anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. Shortly, as the climate change catastrophes mount and crop failures raise food prices, almost everyone will care more than a retard like you can imagine.

Assessment fAiL...............wake up and smell the maple nut crunch s0n.

The half-brains are winning in epic fashion >>>>>>>>

Ummmmm...........maybe I'm missing it, but does anybody else see "climate change" on that graph?????




OOOooooops!!!








You fringe alarmists have been knocking yourselves out for two decades with the bomb throwing.....and it hasnt gotten you dick. Nobody cares about this shit anymore and what do the k00ks do? They stick to PLAN A



Almost one year ago now, I asked any of the alarmist bozo's to come up with one single link displaying for the rest of us where they are winning. Almost 12 months later...........still cant put up DICK. Pardon me, but I cant stop laughing.............

Oh.......but wait..........the alarmist nutters are going to change the whole country from this nether-region on the internet!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive said on here with 100% certainty I might add.........when the k00ks can post up pictures of central Alaska in mid-January like this >>>>>>>>>

..........then somebody might start listening to their crap..............and not a moment sooner. Think about it...........in the real world, nobody gives a flying fuck about their sink that drips once every 10 seconds. Except of course, the mental case.


So there ya go...............

 

[flacaltenn]

Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.

OldieRocks....

A few days ago -- I posted a whole slew of Arctic temp manipulations. And showed the sum total effect.. Which was to LOWER the 1930s Arctic temps and RAISE the Arctic in the 60s and 70s.. I'm sure you just skipped over it.. So I'm not concerned about "serving you" when you deem it convienient.

IanC is on solid ground with that assertion.. Too many people with access to open data to try and HIDE the blatant manipulations that are going on..

IanC....

flac- did you see the article on the methane release that Old Rocks is so worried about? naturally occuring.

I've always ASSUMED that releases of permafrost GHGs would be "natural". And I've seen monitoring graphs with high one or two day spikes in them that literally looks likes a moose took a dump on the station. But no -- I haven't seen an assertion about the pattern "being naturally occuring".

 

[IanC]

Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.

you have a long history of ignoring inconvenient threads and comments at the time they are posted. even when they are specifically directed at you. deal with it in a timely fashion or not at all because I am not wasting my time going back to dredge up info that you will simply ignore again.

I am not here to endlessly redo ideas and comments (unlike you), I am here just to discuss affairs in the ongoing climate wars. I am interested in collecting information for myself not disseminating it because I realize I am not going to change anyone's opinion here.

as to the methane story....even the original story declared that the methane release was due to conditions that developed in the last few hundred years. the latest developement is that they took a sub down to the sea bed and found deposits that show the methane has been seeping out feeding organisms for a long time.

At numerous emergences we found deposits that might already be hundreds of years old. This estimation is indeed only based on the size of the samples and empirical values as to how fast such deposits grow. On any account, the methane sources must be older” says Professor Berndt. The exact age of the carbonates will be determined from samples in GEOMAR’s laboratories.

there is a quote, find it yourself

 

[Old Rocks]

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/alaska.pdf

Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States’ average. Its annual average temperature has increased 3.4°F, while winters have warmed
even more, by 6.3°F.501 As a result, climate change impacts are much more pronounced than in other
regions of the United States. The higher temperatures are already contributing to earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and permafrost warming.220,501 These observed changes are consistent with climate model projections of greater warming over Alaska, especially in winter, as compared to the rest of the country.