The Arctic is already effectively ice free

[westwall]

Does anyone find it even the slightest bit amusing that crickey boy makes a bald faced lie in the OP itself? "Effectively ice free" is the claim and the actual fact is that it is within the normal 2 year variation.

Here is the graph for yesterday and as can be plainly seen the line is within the normal zone. What sort of person does it take to make such a bald faced lie?

Are we dealing with someone who is pathological? Or is it that they are merely prostitutes for the IPCC and will spew whatever shit their masters tell them to?

 

[jc456]

Does anyone find it even the slightest bit amusing that crickey boy makes a bald faced lie in the OP itself? "Effectively ice free" is the claim and the actual fact is that it is within the normal 2 year variation.

Here is the graph for yesterday and as can be plainly seen the line is within the normal zone. What sort of person does it take to make such a bald faced lie?

Are we dealing with someone who is pathological? Or is it that they are merely prostitutes for the IPCC and will spew whatever shit their masters tell them to?

yes!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone find it even the slightest bit amusing that crickey boy makes a bald faced lie in the OP itself? "Effectively ice free" is the claim and the actual fact is that it is within the normal 2 year variation.

Here is the graph for yesterday and as can be plainly seen the line is within the normal zone. What sort of person does it take to make such a bald faced lie?

Are we dealing with someone who is pathological? Or is it that they are merely prostitutes for the IPCC and will spew whatever shit their masters tell them to?

There's a real disconnect between reality and Crick's world view. Moreover, he presses on even after the disconnect has been pointed out -- numerous times.

 

[jc456]

Does anyone find it even the slightest bit amusing that crickey boy makes a bald faced lie in the OP itself? "Effectively ice free" is the claim and the actual fact is that it is within the normal 2 year variation.

Here is the graph for yesterday and as can be plainly seen the line is within the normal zone. What sort of person does it take to make such a bald faced lie?

Are we dealing with someone who is pathological? Or is it that they are merely prostitutes for the IPCC and will spew whatever shit their masters tell them to?

There's a real disconnect between reality and Crick's world view. Moreover, he presses on even after the disconnect has been pointed out -- numerous times.

Right? He's like a but machine. yeah, but, oh..............yeah but, still hasn't commented on what his solution to his problem is. Notice how he avoids that as well?

 

[mamooth]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

 

[jc456]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

so tooth, you have the solution to the problem you're so consumed with?

 

[flacaltenn]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

It's actually more of a 20 or 25 year chance.. 4.54% But nevermind.. Those bounds are only valid if the function HAS a normal distribution OVER THE PERIOD OF 30 years... Which is the normalization period.. No reason to believe that it's that well fit to a Normal distribution over short periods of observation... In fact, 30 years is hardly enough to accomodate KNOWN oscillation cycles of Arctic climate change..

 

[westwall]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

Are you going to address the very obvious lie that your pal uttered or are you merely going to spew more shit?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

Neither "Denier" nor "Consensus" are scientific words, they're only used by Cults

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaking of machines, the denier conspiracy machine seems to be have thrown a cog. They seem to have realized their fake-everything campaign has ended disastrously for deniers, so now they're back to telling us about how Dark Lord Ottmar secretly forced socialism upon the globe.

Now, as much as we all love denier conspiracy theories, the thread topic is Arctic ice. And there, we see the "rebound" that deniers depend on has collapsed. Denier talking points that haven't been conclusively debunked are getting rather thin, much like the Arctic ice.

I also find it amusing that our "scientist" thinks a two sigma variation is a "normal two year variation." Reaching the two-sigma line is about a 2% probability, so it's more like a normal one-in-fifty year variation, if things were truly random.

How much to we have to reduce CO2 to bring ice back to the Arctic?

Remember, 93% of the imaginary "excess heat" is absorbed by the oceans.

 

[mamooth]

It's actually more of a 20 or 25 year chance.. 4.54% But nevermind.

It's that if you count either side of the 2-sigma line. I ws counting just the lower. But you're right, nevermind, same diff.

Those bounds are only valid if the function HAS a normal distribution OVER THE PERIOD OF 30 years... Which is the normalization period.. No reason to believe that it's that well fit to a Normal distribution over short periods of observation... In fact, 30 years is hardly enough to accomodate KNOWN oscillation cycles of Arctic climate change..

Where are these oscillations known? We've got good measurements going back to 1953, and they don't show any oscillations. They show a decline starting around 1970. (Also note that 1979, the start of satellite observations and the start of most sea ice charts, is not a particularly high year.)

Less good records go back further. Ice away from the coastlines wasn't measured, so big melts in fall wouldn't have been visible. However, abnormally low ice extents would have been visible in winter, and they weren't observed.

 

[mamooth]

Are you going to address the very obvious lie that your pal uttered or are you merely going to spew more shit?

I'm going to do what you hate most, which is ignore your attempts to draw me into your obsessive pissing match.

 

[westwall]

Are you going to address the very obvious lie that your pal uttered or are you merely going to spew more shit?

I'm going to do what you hate most, which is ignore your attempts to draw me into your obsessive pissing match.

I don't hate. That is your realm. I am merely pointing out the ridiculous nature of your post.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The long term trend appears "linear" these past 5-7 years being mainly effected by the weather...At the rate this "linear" trade is decreasing I'd say it could take the next 75-100 years to get low enough to support the title of this thread.

This is assuming that there's no negative forcings caused by a more "open" arctic ocean producing more snow during the winter. This is something that we're already seeing and is a large reason why the trade from 2000-2008 has slown greatly.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's actually more of a 20 or 25 year chance.. 4.54% But nevermind.

It's that if you count either side of the 2-sigma line. I ws counting just the lower. But you're right, nevermind, same diff.

Those bounds are only valid if the function HAS a normal distribution OVER THE PERIOD OF 30 years... Which is the normalization period.. No reason to believe that it's that well fit to a Normal distribution over short periods of observation... In fact, 30 years is hardly enough to accomodate KNOWN oscillation cycles of Arctic climate change..

Where are these oscillations known? We've got good measurements going back to 1953, and they don't show any oscillations. They show a decline starting around 1970. (Also note that 1979, the start of satellite observations and the start of most sea ice charts, is not a particularly high year.)

Less good records go back further. Ice away from the coastlines wasn't measured, so big melts in fall wouldn't have been visible. However, abnormally low ice extents would have been visible in winter, and they weren't observed.

Nice 1st chart -- but it's fundamentally different than where we started.. The YEARLY version posted earlier looks at the same month observations and assigns a statistical bounds for similar INTRA-annual data. Your new entry is simply the raw observations. So the statistical bounds in the previous YEARLY chart are about variance from a set mean.. Interesting enough. THe beginning and end of your RAW chart APPEAR to have higher INTRA-ANNUAL variance. Say '53 thru '70 and then 2003 to the end.. Hard to tell..

Arctic Oscillations DO affect the sea ice extents. What can I say? You just want to view it on a 50 year scale..


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/full/ngeo1629.html
1,500-year cycle in the Arctic Oscillation identified in Holocene Arctic sea-ice drift

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My worst nightmare would be if a Warmer were the first person that some superior alien civilization were to speak with regarding life on Earth. They'd get as far as , " a wisp of CO2 is melting the ice cap..." Then the aliens would decide mankind is just too fucking stupid to be allowed to continue

 

[Crick]

Did anyone here actually read the OP's article? It seems not. The phrase "effectively ice-free" refers to thin, fractured ice being judged solid ice cover from a satellite's perspective. Such ice allows for the movement of vessels and responds quite differently to winds and sea currents. The article is NOT suggesting that the Arctic is actually ice free in summer. 22 pages in and the central argument of the OP doesn't seem to have been seen by anyone.

 

[jc456]

Did anyone here actually read the OP's article? It seems not. The phrase "effectively ice-free" refers to thin, fractured ice being judged solid ice cover from a satellite's perspective. Such ice allows for the movement of vessels and responds quite differently to winds and sea currents. The article is NOT suggesting that the Arctic is actually ice free in summer. 22 pages in and the central argument of the OP doesn't seem to have been seen by anyone.

Yes, you lied

 

[Crick]

Where do you believe I lied?

 

[jc456]

Where do you believe I lied?

hmmmmmmmmmm......Because the arctic isn't.