What exactly was that about lowest sea ice ever?

[westwall]

Seems that the reports may have been....wrong?

Maybe

Sea Ice News #11 | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

 

[konradv]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.

 

[westwall]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C. Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

 

[konradv]

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

 

[westwall]

The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

Ok so please show us how during the Medieval Warming Period there was a mass melt that inundated the coastal regions of the world. It was at least three degrees warmer then than now. Where is the evidence?

 

[Ravi]

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

Ok so please show us how during the Medieval Warming Period there was a mass melt that inundated the coastal regions of the world. It was at least three degrees warmer then than now. Where is the evidence?

Where is yours?

"... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, 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".[14] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[15] Crowley and Lowery (2000) [16] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

via wikipedia

 

[Old Rocks]

This PNAS article states essentially the same thing.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia ? PNAS

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

 

[westwall]

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

Ok so please show us how during the Medieval Warming Period there was a mass melt that inundated the coastal regions of the world. It was at least three degrees warmer then than now. Where is the evidence?

Where is yours?

"... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, 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".[14] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[15] Crowley and Lowery (2000) [16] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

via wikipedia

First off you really need to stop using wiki as your source. No professor I know of will allow their students to use it as it is so filled with bad information.

Now to your point. My point is that if there had been such a catastrophic rise back then we would know about it now wouldn't we? The temperature was much higher (as much as 2.7 degrees C depending on who you look at) and if the current predictions are to have any validity then you can read the historical record and prove that the sea levels rose. The only problem is you can't, which means that the AGW assertion is bogus along with almost everything else they have been saying.

News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

C3: 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present

Medieval Warm Period seen in western USA tree ring fire scars | Watts Up With That?


These are just a very few of the studies that have shown that wherever in the world you look, the evidence of the MWP is plentiful and confirms it was much warmer than the current time.

 

[Ravi]

On the whole I'll take wikipedia's less partisan links than the one's you've given. And of course it wasn't 2.7 degrees celsius warmer then...not only would that have affected the coast line but also it would be part of the historical lore.

 

[westwall]

On the whole I'll take wikipedia's less partisan links than the one's you've given. And of course it wasn't 2.7 degrees celsius warmer then...not only would that have affected the coast line but also it would be part of the historical lore.

Yeaahhh sure...whatever you say there Ravi..less partisan huh? Maybe you never heard of this clown?

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism | Watts Up With That?

And he's only one of them. There is another englishman who's name escapes me who has modified over 5,000 entries pertaining to GW. And I dare you to guess which side he favours

 

[The Infidel]

One of these days folks will realize that the earth goes thru cycles, and if it were'nt for a "warm globe" we would all starve to death!
In a 1000 yrs I will say " I told ya so".... just you wait and see

Rescue Me! Another polar expedition trapped in ice | Watts Up With That?

Jennifer Marohasy Arctic Activists to be Rescued

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/gloal-warming-idiot-damn-near-freezes-to-death

 

[Ravi]

On the whole I'll take wikipedia's less partisan links than the one's you've given. And of course it wasn't 2.7 degrees celsius warmer then...not only would that have affected the coast line but also it would be part of the historical lore.

Yeaahhh sure...whatever you say there Ravi..less partisan huh? Maybe you never heard of this clown?

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism | Watts Up With That?

And he's only one of them. There is another englishman who's name escapes me who has modified over 5,000 entries pertaining to GW. And I dare you to guess which side he favours

He was booted from Wikipedia in 2009.

Regardless...a 2.9 C change would alter the coasts and be mentioned in historical lore. Didn't happen, IMO.

You're as bad as those you accuse.

 

[westwall]

On the whole I'll take wikipedia's less partisan links than the one's you've given. And of course it wasn't 2.7 degrees celsius warmer then...not only would that have affected the coast line but also it would be part of the historical lore.

Yeaahhh sure...whatever you say there Ravi..less partisan huh? Maybe you never heard of this clown?

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism | Watts Up With That?

And he's only one of them. There is another englishman who's name escapes me who has modified over 5,000 entries pertaining to GW. And I dare you to guess which side he favours

He was booted from Wikipedia in 2009.

Regardless...a 2.9 C change would alter the coasts and be mentioned in historical lore. Didn't happen, IMO.

You're as bad as those you accuse.

You mean he was FINALLY booted after years of protests about his partisanism. Yeah real
non partisan there Ravi And old chum I don't ALTER WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN, unlike your buddy Connolley. Me as bad? Hardly!

 

[code1211]

The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

I like history. There was a show on one of the science channels about Pompei, the city, not the General, and the folks who died from the various plagues that issued from the volcano. One of the places that people died seeking refuge was right on the shore in man made stone enclosures that were a convenient place to wait for a boat.

Interestingly, they are still right on the shore after being dug out of the solidified ash. Go figure.

We know from AGW proponents that during the time of Global warming that the sea level has risen constantly but at varying rates. The rise each year has been between .5 and 1.8 mm. Pompeii and Herculaneum were buried about 2000 years ago.

Taking the low end estimate of sea level rise, we find that the sea level has risen by 1000 mm. Is that a full meter? A vertical rise of 1 meter in the sea level and yet the shore line is unmoved. Of course, the high end estimate makes a sea level rise of 3 and a half meters. Doesn't matter. The shore line still didn't move.

So, is the the ocean half empty or half full? Is this theory half baked or what?

 

[Sinatra]

Yeaahhh sure...whatever you say there Ravi..less partisan huh? Maybe you never heard of this clown?

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism | Watts Up With That?

And he's only one of them. There is another englishman who's name escapes me who has modified over 5,000 entries pertaining to GW. And I dare you to guess which side he favours

He was booted from Wikipedia in 2009.

Regardless...a 2.9 C change would alter the coasts and be mentioned in historical lore. Didn't happen, IMO.

You're as bad as those you accuse.

You mean he was FINALLY booted after years of protests about his partisanism. Yeah real
non partisan there Ravi And old chum I don't ALTER WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN, unlike your buddy Connolley. Me as bad? Hardly!

____

Ravi has been exposed as a fool yet again...

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.

And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?

Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.

I like history. There was a show on one of the science channels about Pompei, the city, not the General, and the folks who died from the various plagues that issued from the volcano. One of the places that people died seeking refuge was right on the shore in man made stone enclosures that were a convenient place to wait for a boat.

Interestingly, they are still right on the shore after being dug out of the solidified ash. Go figure.

We know from AGW proponents that during the time of Global warming that the sea level has risen constantly but at varying rates. The rise each year has been between .5 and 1.8 mm. Pompeii and Herculaneum were buried about 2000 years ago.

Taking the low end estimate of sea level rise, we find that the sea level has risen by 1000 mm. Is that a full meter? A vertical rise of 1 meter in the sea level and yet the shore line is unmoved. Of course, the high end estimate makes a sea level rise of 3 and a half meters. Doesn't matter. The shore line still didn't move.

So, is the the ocean half empty or half full? Is this theory half baked or what?

Is Code really this ignorant? Or is he once again shilling for the energy companies?

There are areas of sea level that is declining in relationship to the nearest land in North America because of plate tectonics. There are other areas where the sea level far exceeds the average because of the subsidance, through compaction, of sediments, such as areas along the Gulf coast.

Over the whole world, we see an average of rise or decline in sea level by measuring the relationship to the nearest land. However, with the advent of satellites, all this has changed, and we can measure absolute sea level rise or decline over the whole world.

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise
Sea level rise
One of the most significant potential impacts of climate change is sea level rise that may cause inundation of coastal areas and islands, shoreline erosion, and destruction of important ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves. As global temperatures increase, sea level rises due to a thermal expansion of upper layers of the ocean and melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001) and Jason-2 (2008) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm. This climate record has continued with Jason-2 beginning in mid-2008.

Jason-2, launched 20 June 2008, is a joint effort between NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.

Global mean sea level from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

Ice reflects 90% of the energy to the sunlight back into space. Open ocean absorbs 90% of the energy in sunlight. So as the Arctic Ocean loses ice, it warms. As it warms, it releases CH4 stored in the clathrates in the sediments on the ocean floor. This causes the atmosphere to absorb even more heat that is radiated from the Earth. A nice feedback loop.

 

[westwall]

Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.

Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?

Ice reflects 90% of the energy to the sunlight back into space. Open ocean absorbs 90% of the energy in sunlight. So as the Arctic Ocean loses ice, it warms. As it warms, it releases CH4 stored in the clathrates in the sediments on the ocean floor. This causes the atmosphere to absorb even more heat that is radiated from the Earth. A nice feedback loop.

But wait. If this is true than there should have been a massive catastrophic heat increase when the MWP occured! We cab then prove that man will indeed destroy the Earth due to massive increases of CO2 which even though they weren't present during the MWP MUST be the cause of the current warming right?

Riiiiiight. Show me the money old fraud. You keep preaching about the Methane Catastrophe that is sure to occur next week and yet there is zero evidence that anything like it occured during the MWP when it was at least 2.6 C hotter than now.

Put up or shut up!