Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[westwall]

Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not. Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops. Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.

Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?



"A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds."

NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery

My word....what an embarassing thread!

Poor old Westwall!


It's funny - everytime you think the debate has moved on and people have started to become better informed, you see a thread like this and realise that for some people this issue is 100% political. No amount of science makes a jot of difference.

On the contrary, it has been an excellent thread, it's shown the world what complete idiots you all are for believeing in something that has no physical evidence whatsoever. You and your socks (well, personally I think you, trolling blunder and what's his nose are all olfraud socks...but who cares) have demonstrated beyond question that you have no clue how real science is done, that you are merely political operatives and that your cause is lost...you're just too stupid to figure it out.

But that's OK, you all provide a wealth of entertainment for those of us who are capable of rubbing more than two brain cells together...and for that we thank you!

 

[RollingThunder]

Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not. Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops. Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.

Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?



"A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds."

NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery

My word....what an embarassing thread!

Poor old Westwall!


It's funny - everytime you think the debate has moved on and people have started to become better informed, you see a thread like this and realise that for some people this issue is 100% political. No amount of science makes a jot of difference.

On the contrary, it has been an excellent thread,

Not for you, dumbass, you're just too retarded to remember that your idiotic OP got debunked in post #14 of this moronic thread. Let me refresh your faulty memory there, walleyedretard.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASA
09.19.12
(government publication - free to reproduce)

Satellite data reveal how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from Sept. 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow). Sea ice extent maps are derived from data captured by the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager on multiple satellites from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio

The frozen cap of the Arctic Ocean appears to have reached its annual summertime minimum extent and broken a new record low on Sept. 16, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NASA and the NASA-supported NSIDC at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers).

The new record minimum measures almost 300,000 square miles less than the previous lowest extent in the satellite record, set in mid-September 2007, of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers). For comparison, the state of Texas measures around 268,600 square miles.

NSIDC cautioned that, although Sept. 16 seems to be the annual minimum, there's still time for winds to change and compact the ice floes, potentially reducing the sea ice extent further. NASA and NSIDC will release a complete analysis of the 2012 melt season next month, once all data for September are available.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.

"The core of the ice cap is the perennial ice, which normally survived the summer because it was so thick", said Joey Comiso, senior scientist with NASA Goddard. "But because it's been thinning year after year, it has now become vulnerable to melt".

The disappearing older ice gets replaced in winter with thinner seasonal ice that usually melts completely in the summer.

This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson 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."


***

 

[RollingThunder]

Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..

Oh fecalhead, I'd be happy to comment....here you go.....the issues you imagine you are raising are just ignorant nonsense that you only think mean something because you're a clueless retard with no knowledge of this subject that doesn't come from a denier cult pseudo-science blog. You've long since demonstrated your almost total ignorance of actual science and scientific principles so arguing with you over stuff you can't understand in the first place is just pointless.

Shakun's paper just came out this year and if there are any problems with the science, they will be addressed by other peer reviewed papers by real climate scientists. So far, no actual climate scientists have found fault with it, just the usual crop of uneducated and unqualified paid deniers and stooges that you're always quoting. How about if you just hold your breath until some real climate scientists refute Shakun's findings. Let me know when that happens; until then you're just blowing smoke and pushing your usual pseudo-scientific BS.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..

Oh fecalhead, I'd be happy to comment....here you go.....the issues you imagine you are raising are just ignorant nonsense that you only think mean something because you're a clueless retard with no knowledge of this subject that doesn't come from a denier cult pseudo-science blog. You've long since demonstrated your almost total ignorance of actual science and scientific principles so arguing with you over stuff you can't understand in the first place is just pointless.

Shakun's paper just came out this year and if there are any problems with the science, they will be addressed by other peer reviewed papers by real climate scientists. So far, no actual climate scientists have found fault with it, just the usual crop of uneducated and unqualified paid deniers and stooges that you're always quoting. How about if you just hold your breath until some real climate scientists refute Shakun's findings. Let me know when that happens; until then you're just blowing smoke and pushing your usual pseudo-scientific BS.

IOWs --- no ORIGINAL thought, no ORIGINAL opinion and this is just a variant of Fantasy Football to you (MY scientists gonna whip YOUR lame cult deniers NEXT WEEK) and an opportunity to use words your mommy don't approve of...

That's a waste of my time.. In fact, other than Trakar and Old Rocks, your whole Fantasy Science League is completely vapid, and illogical endevour.

 

[RollingThunder]

Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..

Oh fecalhead, I'd be happy to comment....here you go.....the issues you imagine you are raising are just ignorant nonsense that you only think mean something because you're a clueless retard with no knowledge of this subject that doesn't come from a denier cult pseudo-science blog. You've long since demonstrated your almost total ignorance of actual science and scientific principles so arguing with you over stuff you can't understand in the first place is just pointless.

Shakun's paper just came out this year and if there are any problems with the science, they will be addressed by other peer reviewed papers by real climate scientists. So far, no actual climate scientists have found fault with it, just the usual crop of uneducated and unqualified paid deniers and stooges that you're always quoting. How about if you just hold your breath until some real climate scientists refute Shakun's findings. Let me know when that happens; until then you're just blowing smoke and pushing your usual pseudo-scientific BS.

no ORIGINAL thought, no ORIGINAL opinion

How ironic and amusing coming from someone like you who just parrots verbatim the 'opinions' and 'thoughts' you scrape off of your denier cult blogs.

...MY scientists gonna whip YOUR lame cult deniers...

Well you got that right (sort of). Actual working climate scientists debunk the pseudo-science drivel of your denier cult spokesmen every time but you are too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas

Can you walk me through one more time this concept of ocean "Acidification"?

 

[flacaltenn]

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas

...........And this is scientific news ---- WHY? That algae blooms cause CO2 release when they decay? That this effect is 2 to 12 MORE significant that the acidification caused by man-made CO2? (if indeed all of the ocean acidification being measured is DUE to increases in anthro CO2).

Which part of this news blurb was news to you? Or is a general yelp in the dark about killing the planet.

 

[Saigon]

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas

Can you walk me through one more time this concept of ocean "Acidification"?

Not so fast there, Frank -

If someone 'walks you through' this topic, will you commit to actually reading the evidence and commenting sensibly on it?

Yes or no?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.

When you deal with real scientists you don't get the hysterics and profanity in reply; the Warmers are a Cult and asking them to question their beliefs shakes them to their core

Well, here is a source of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals from around the world from real scientists.

AGW Observer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas

Can you walk me through one more time this concept of ocean "Acidification"?

Not so fast there, Frank -

If someone 'walks you through' this topic, will you commit to actually reading the evidence and commenting sensibly on it?

Yes or no?

Sure.

But know that I "talk sensibly" even when your inability to grasp basic concepts prevents you from understading

 

[Old Rocks]

I love this thread.

Now would some...any...just one of you chicken littleshits explain to us global warming doubters just why this GD ice melted (see YouTube below), then refroze, then melted again...twice in the last 100,000 years (last time 25,000 years ago) when there were NO AIRPLANES, NO AUTOMOBILES, NO SMOKE BELCHING FACTORIES, NO SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO FARTING DINOSAURS, NO WORLD WARS AND NO PRIEUSes running around on top of the icecap?

OH YEAH...NO OIL COMPANIES.

Your attention to this matter will be the object of much derision. Thank You!

The Last Ice Age (120 000 years ago to Modern) - YouTube

Where have you been for the last 50 years, boy? In some deep and dark hollow? Try using that thing you are typing your abysmal ignorance on, and google Milankovic.

I've been living right here in the St. Louis area for 61 of my 70 years junior. I have absolutely no interest in googling Milankovic or any proponent of global warming. So if you have something to say, spit it out sonny boy. Meanwhile, what your trying to tell me is that you don't believe that gw bullshit either...and you can take your abysmal egghead intelligence and shove it up your abysmal egghead ass...side ways, you sorry bastard.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A CFO? Damn, you just confirmed my deepest suspicions about the mental capabilities of upper management

 

[flacaltenn]

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.

As I remember it -- Trakar attempted to baffle us with mathematical intimidation which I reduced to the absurb claim that "30% more acidic" actually was..

And you guys have convieniently skipped MY cogent comments above.. Is it because you're only here to brawl and NOT DISCUSS any of the technical details and issues?? Or that you don't understand the content of the link on algae blooms and CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.

The Bullshit is trying to convince people that CO2 is turning the oceans "Acidic"

First, ocean absorption of CO2 knock the props out of your atmospheric feedback scam.

Second, even when you discover that the ocean absorbs CO2 at TWICE the rate in your model, your models do not make any adjustments. It's like double the tax on an investment and still showing the same net after tax return, it's a scam, a fraud.

Third, there is no "Ocean acidification" the carbonic acid molecule disassociates when hitting the water so there is no build up of acid

Finally, there is no "Average Ocean pH" it's an accounting fiction

Go shuck an Oregon oyster

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.

When you deal with real scientists you don't get the hysterics and profanity in reply; the Warmers are a Cult and asking them to question their beliefs shakes them to their core

Well, here is a source of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals from around the world from real scientists.

AGW Observer

I go there, but only because Larson stopped publishing "the Far Side". Your site is good for a laugh

I'd change it to "School for Global Warming Studies"

 

[Foxfyre]

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.

As I remember it -- Trakar attempted to baffle us with mathematical intimidation which I reduced to the absurb claim that "30% more acidic" actually was..

And you guys have convieniently skipped MY cogent comments above.. Is it because you're only here to brawl and NOT DISCUSS any of the technical details and issues?? Or that you don't understand the content of the link on algae blooms and CO2?

This has been my frustration. There are those of us who really are interested in this topic and there are more than a few, including me, who want to really learn about the real dynamics. Not the politically correct dynamics. Not the politioeconomic dynamics. And certainly not the dynamics of those who have so little intelligence, they are unable to even pretend they are adults, much less civil ones. Do people really think they are persuasive when all they have to offer is profanity and insulting people? Evenmoreso when it is obvious they have never read anything really objective on this topic and they don't even understand the stuff they post?

So of course they don't want to even look at the content of effect on algae blooms on CO2, or consider whether the current conditions have occurred in the past in the same way, or consider the motives of those offering all those pretty charts and graphs and scientific looking data. And they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

The OP presented an excellent opportunity to really rethink the conclusions of those who are all in a dither they think there was excessive melt of the arctic ice cap this summer. Real time reported evidence is presented to give us a chance to see and understand that differently. It is too bad that we don't have more who are interested in the science who would find that interesting rather than those who treat it as politically incorrect to even bring it up.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.

As I remember it -- Trakar attempted to baffle us with mathematical intimidation which I reduced to the absurb claim that "30% more acidic" actually was..

And you guys have convieniently skipped MY cogent comments above.. Is it because you're only here to brawl and NOT DISCUSS any of the technical details and issues?? Or that you don't understand the content of the link on algae blooms and CO2?

This has been my frustration. There are those of us who really are interested in this topic and there are more than a few, including me, who want to really learn about the real dynamics. Not the politically correct dynamics. Not the politioeconomic dynamics. And certainly not the dynamics of those who have so little intelligence, they are unable to even pretend they are adults, much less civil ones. Do people really think they are persuasive when all they have to offer is profanity and insulting people? Evenmoreso when it is obvious they have never read anything really objective on this topic and they don't even understand the stuff they post?

So of course they don't want to even look at the content of effect on algae blooms on CO2, or consider whether the current conditions have occurred in the past in the same way, or consider the motives of those offering all those pretty charts and graphs and scientific looking data. And they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

The OP presented an excellent opportunity to really rethink the conclusions of those who are all in a dither they think there was excessive melt of the arctic ice cap this summer. Real time reported evidence is presented to give us a chance to see and understand that differently. It is too bad that we don't have more who are interested in the science who would find that interesting rather than those who treat it as politically incorrect to even bring it up.

This thread is an EXCELLENT example of the lack of willingness to discuss the technical content in a cogent scientific manner. All you have to do to be accosted as a "clueless, cult denier" is to remind those panicked souls watching the "ice melt" that they are not really looking at solid sea ice shrinking -- but they were watching a "image enhanced" statistic of sea ice "get rearranged". Since the sea ice coverage is defined as low as 20% coverage of the ocean surface..

Merely pointing out how those floating cubes are influenced by currents and storms is enough to bring this thread down to the Flame Zone. With warmers hanging on to phrases like "the ice was made vulnerable" by previous melts. OK --- but you were NOT WATCHING what you THINK you watching..

Tune in next week.. Since the world IS warming -- there is likely to be more ice melting in the Arctic..

 

[mamooth]

and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

Look us in the eye and say you think Skook, Frank, Oddball or Quantrill are behaving like grownups. Just which rationalist is behaving anywhere as badly as that group? None of us are picture-spamming and screaming insults with zero content. Your notable absence of criticism there makes your calls for civility look quite hypocritical.

Flac and Westwall are a bit better, but they go heavy on the handwaving and declaring that anyone who doesn't accept their bizarre logic and unsupported conspiracy theories has to be stupid or dishonest. These are your role models?

Flac says scattered ice isn't measured, which is a just a strange claim. Not being morons, of course scientists measure and account for scattered ice.

Westwall's "it was just a storm, not warming!" is equally senseless, because there have been storms before. A storm wouldn't have gotten that big without mucho open warmer water to feed it, and wouldn't have torn up and melted the ice so much unless the ice was already mostly gone, and unless the water was so unusually warm.

And who on the rational side is trying to hide discussion of algae blooms and ocean acidification, or refusing to look at the past, as you just bizarrely claimed? You lying about us doesn't make us wrong, it just makes you look like a liar.

Lose your "I'm so independent!" charade. You're a right-wing political cultist, and you stink at hiding it. You run from any discussion that threatens your cult's dogma, then you hide behind a childish "Waah! You're all so mean!" sulking act. The grownups are going to call you out when you talk nonsense, and we don't care if that makes you cry about how mean we are.

 

[flacaltenn]

and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

Look us in the eye and say you think Skook, Frank, Oddball or Quantrill are behaving like grownups. Just which rationalist is behaving anywhere as badly as that group? None of us are picture-spamming and screaming insults with zero content. Your notable absence of criticism there makes your calls for civility look quite hypocritical.

Flac and Westwall are a bit better, but they go heavy on the handwaving and declaring that anyone who doesn't accept their bizarre logic and unsupported conspiracy theories has to be stupid or dishonest. These are your role models?

Flac says scattered ice isn't measured, which is a just a strange claim. Not being morons, of course scientists measure and account for scattered ice.

Westwall's "it was just a storm, not warming!" is equally senseless, because there have been storms before. A storm wouldn't have gotten that big without mucho open warmer water to feed it, and wouldn't have torn up and melted the ice so much unless the ice was already mostly gone, and unless the water was so unusually warm.

And who on the rational side is trying to hide discussion of algae blooms and ocean acidification, or refusing to look at the past, as you just bizarrely claimed? You lying about us doesn't make us wrong, it just makes you look like a liar.

Lose your "I'm so independent!" charade. You're a right-wing political cultist, and you stink at hiding it. You run from any discussion that threatens your cult's dogma, then you hide behind a childish "Waah! You're all so mean!" sulking act. The grownups are going to call you out when you talk nonsense, and we don't care if that makes you cry about how mean we are.

Childish "waah"????? You didn't even quote me correctly.. So the only germane technical point you tried to make was totally mangled. My ENTIRE POST to Foxy was that much of that sea ice IS scattered AND IS measured as tho it's solid, even tho most the space is water., not as it appears on those charts of "melting".. With MUCH OF THAT AREA already existing as open ocean.. You blew the entire point of the thread right there -- by demonstrating how little you focus on the science/debate and how much you focus on personalities and "scoring".

I'm very proud of folks who have invested in understanding the issues of Climate change. Not so impressed tho with that would rather badger and belittle. If you think that strategy is gonna make me or Frank or Wally or Todd or Skooks or Ian or ANY of the dissenters on the CO2 theory change their position. You're wasting time here...

BTW: SO FAR -- I'm pretty sure I'm the ONLY ONE here who made comments and assertions about that "Duh" study of algae blooms..
Didn't even get a courtesy reply from Dot Com answering WHY he thought that study was important.
You disagree with my comments, READ THEM, then post.. Meanwhile --- Stop the theatrical grandstanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

Look us in the eye and say you think Skook, Frank, Oddball or Quantrill are behaving like grownups. Just which rationalist is behaving anywhere as badly as that group? None of us are picture-spamming and screaming insults with zero content. Your notable absence of criticism there makes your calls for civility look quite hypocritical.

Flac and Westwall are a bit better, but they go heavy on the handwaving and declaring that anyone who doesn't accept their bizarre logic and unsupported conspiracy theories has to be stupid or dishonest. These are your role models?

Flac says scattered ice isn't measured, which is a just a strange claim. Not being morons, of course scientists measure and account for scattered ice.

Westwall's "it was just a storm, not warming!" is equally senseless, because there have been storms before. A storm wouldn't have gotten that big without mucho open warmer water to feed it, and wouldn't have torn up and melted the ice so much unless the ice was already mostly gone, and unless the water was so unusually warm.

And who on the rational side is trying to hide discussion of algae blooms and ocean acidification, or refusing to look at the past, as you just bizarrely claimed? You lying about us doesn't make us wrong, it just makes you look like a liar.

Lose your "I'm so independent!" charade. You're a right-wing political cultist, and you stink at hiding it. You run from any discussion that threatens your cult's dogma, then you hide behind a childish "Waah! You're all so mean!" sulking act. The grownups are going to call you out when you talk nonsense, and we don't care if that makes you cry about how mean we are.

If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth. I am not interested in pointing fingers and joining in the food fight here, thank you very much. Some enjoy that sort of thing. It is frustrating to me on a thread that merits a more constructive approach.

Westwall offered an excellent opportunity to be objective here. When you can go to pro-AGW after pro-AGW website all wringing their hands over the 'excessive ice melt' and hollering SEE???? MORE PROOF of devastating anthropological globa warming!!!!!, I find it very interesting to think there might be a different explanation for the 'excessive' reduction in ice cover in the arctic this summer. And if there is, I want to know the truth about it, and not the politically correct version.

Of course there is global warming. The Earth has been warming in various degrees since the last ice age and, because we know it has been considerably warmer in the past than it currently is, there is little reason to believe that trend won't continue until such time as we enter the next inevitable ice age. Humans survived those warmer periods in the past and survived the last ice age and there is no reason to believe we won't continue to survive unless we get hit by a mega asteroid or some such. (Now coming up with an advance warning system and means to destroy or deflect such asteroid--also probably inevitable in our future--would be something I could really get behind and support.)

So for me it is important to know whether humans are significantly changing the global climate or whether what we are experiencing is a naturally occurring climate trend. Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now. Those of us who are reading all the data know that. And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.