2013 sea ice thread!!!

[mamooth]

The main attraction now is the cyclone-that-won't-go-away. It faded, but came roaring back, and is forecast to keep going another week.

That's making for an interesting ice pattern. Fragmented in the middle, but more solid at the margins. It remains to be seen how that will play out in the long term, as we haven't seen this before. In other areas, the warm temperatures over Hudson Bay Baffin Bay start the breakup there, which was delayed due to a cold May in those areas.

 

[gslack]

The Russians move to evacuate their North Pole station as the ice under it cracks. That station was supposed to last until September. Right now, the station has drifted closer to Canada, but the Russians are still handling it, using a big icebreaker that carries helos. If it gets really serious, they'll ask Canada for an assist.

Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers | Arctic.ru

The June 5 forecast for Churchill on Hudson Bay is 23C/73F, and the June 6 forecast is 27C/80F.

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada

That's going to put a dent in the Hudson Bay sea ice. Significantly above-average temperatures are forecast for the most of Canadian Arctic and Greenland. In addition to sea ice melting, the snowpack on land, already below average, will probably end up totally gone on the continent and majorly reduced on the islands, which sets the stage for more sunlight absorption. The general Arctic forecast is sunny for a few days, then a new cyclone forms around June 10.

Your lying is a bad habit now admiral... Your first link...

Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers | Arctic.ru

Yamal icebreaker to reach North Pole-40 polar station within two weeks to evacuate explorers

in RIA Novosti
May 31, 2013


The Yamal icebreaker will depart from Murmansk on May 31 to evacuate Russian explorers from the North Pole-40 (NP-40) drifting polar station. The voyage will take nearly two weeks due to the difficult ice conditions, said Andrei Smirnov, General Director for Fleet Maintenance of Atomflot, a division of Rosatom.Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Sergei Donskoi reported a day before that ice floe destruction around the station does not pose a threat for the lives of 16 researchers working there. However, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is pondering different variants of the station’s evacuation. On May 31, the Yamal icebreaker will leave Murmansk to pick up the polar explorers. Evacuation of the drifting research station is scheduled for mid-June. The drifting research polar station North Pole-40 was opened on October 1, 2012.The Minister of Natural Resources and Environment said earlier that explorers will possibly be evacuated by helicopter when Yamal reaches perennial ice 600 km away from NP-40. If the ice situation suddenly gets worse, Canadian services may be involved in the evacuation.
The Yamal icebreaker will depart from Murmansk on May 31 to evacuate Russian explorers from the North Pole-40 (NP-40) drifting polar station. The voyage will take nearly two weeks due to the difficult ice conditions, said Andrei Smirnov, General Director for Fleet Maintenance of Atomflot, a division of Rosatom.


Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Sergei Donskoi reported a day before that ice floe destruction around the station does not pose a threat for the lives of 16 researchers working there. However, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is pondering different variants of the station’s evacuation. On May 31, the Yamal icebreaker will leave Murmansk to pick up the polar explorers. Evacuation of the drifting research station is scheduled for mid-June. The drifting research polar station North Pole-40 was opened on October 1, 2012.


The Minister of Natural Resources and Environment said earlier that explorers will possibly be evacuated by helicopter when Yamal reaches perennial ice 600 km away from NP-40. If the ice situation suddenly gets worse, Canadian services may be involved in the evacuation.

Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did. Not surprising considering it came from a known liar....

Your second link...

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada

Churchill, MB


Current Conditions

5 degrees Celsius

Historical Data

Normals
Max:10°C
Min:1°C

Highest Temperature (2011-2012) 21.2°C 2011
Lowest Temperature (2011-2012) -0.6°C 2012

And again we see you lying about your links material.. Seems the temps there are not especially warmer or colder. So were you outright lying or just going by a weather forecast and trying to pretend it's a fact?

LOL, well either way we see very clearly the record high and low was from 2012, 21.2 C and -0.6C respectively and since the 6th has come and gone and the records from 2012 still stand we can safely say the forecast was bogus..

 

[Wroberson]

I'm sorry again...

You do realize that there are oils wells in the Arctic and instead of collecting it, they burn it. The black soot falls and covers the ice. The Sun hits the dark soot and heats it up causing the ice to melt.

This isn't in support of global warming by any means, but you can't sell an idea unless you can show that the idea is causing a problem.

I said that because yes, man is drilling and burning up there, but they need the land ice to melt so they can spread the fear of global warming and the alleged man made causes.

 

[mamooth]

Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did.

My summary, as always, was entirely correct. Just because everything in it was not present in the one link does not make it "lies". Someone would have to be a complete imbecile to jump on that kind of retard logic train. But then, look who's talking.

People of normal intelligence would understand that I simply read more sources than the single link I posted, and that my summary included information from those sources. If such a simple concept escapes you, you're out of luck. I can't dumb it down any further. No surprise, as it's usually not possible to dumb down any topic to a level where you can understand it.

Current Conditions
5 degrees Celsius

So SuperEinstein Gslack reads the current temperature of Churchill on Hudson Bay at shortly before 1:21AM (his posting time), compares it to the average daily high for the day, and declares it meant it wasn't warmer than average, like I said, and thus declares I'm a liar.

Yep, he really is that dumb. The thought that it might be colder at night simply never enters into his little brain. That's the level of zero-common-sense that one always encounters with when dealing with gslack. His consistently hilarious stupidity drives him to totally misinterpret everything, and then immediately scream "liar!" at everyone who gets it correct.

People of normal intelligence would be comparing the actual daily high to the historical average high. Looking at the 24-hour record, the high in Churchill on the afternoon of June 9 was ... 19C. That's well above the average high of 10C for that date, reinforcing my point that it's warm over Hudson Bay now.

Gslack, this should be where you show some class and apologize, as your own retardation and lingering butthurt drove you to incorrectly call me a liar. But you won't, since you're emotionally incapable of ever admitting any error, or of backing down from your obessive vendettas. Hence, you're going to double down on the stupid in some very amusing manner, and give everyone a good laugh. Please proceed with that.

 

[gslack]

Seems the link you supplied does not say anything at all like you claimed it did.

My summary, as always, was entirely correct. Just because everything in it was not present in the one link does not make it "lies". Someone would have to be a complete imbecile to jump on that kind of retard logic train. But then, look who's talking.

People of normal intelligence would understand that I simply read more sources than the single link I posted, and that my summary included information from those sources. If such a simple concept escapes you, you're out of luck. I can't dumb it down any further. No surprise, as it's usually not possible to dumb down any topic to a level where you can understand it.

Current Conditions
5 degrees Celsius

So SuperEinstein Gslack reads the current temperature of Churchill on Hudson Bay at shortly before 1:21AM (his posting time), compares it to the average daily high for the day, and declares it meant it wasn't warmer than average, like I said, and thus declares I'm a liar.

Yep, he really is that dumb. The thought that it might be colder at night simply never enters into his little brain. That's the level of zero-common-sense that one always encounters with when dealing with gslack. His consistently hilarious stupidity drives him to totally misinterpret everything, and then immediately scream "liar!" at everyone who gets it correct.

People of normal intelligence would be comparing the actual daily high to the historical average high. Looking at the 24-hour record, the high in Churchill on the afternoon of June 9 was ... 19C. That's well above the average high of 10C for that date, reinforcing my point that it's warm over Hudson Bay now.

Gslack, this should be where you show some class and apologize, as your own retardation and lingering butthurt drove you to incorrectly call me a liar. But you won't, since you're emotionally incapable of ever admitting any error, or of backing down from your obessive vendettas. Hence, you're going to double down on the stupid in some very amusing manner, and give everyone a good laugh. Please proceed with that.

LOLOL...

So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called LYING!!!

The next thing you did was claim that people should be able to read your mind and know that when you post a link and make a claim regarding it, it doesn't mean the link is relevant to it??? MORON...ROFL..

And the best part where you said this little gem...

"Looking at the 24-hour record, the high in Churchill on the afternoon of June 9 was ... 19C. That's well above the average high of 10C for that date, reinforcing my point that it's warm over Hudson Bay now."

What in the hell does that actually say? Does it actually make a meaningful point? NO..The record HIGH is going to be higher ya moron.

Don't like the time I posted? fine how about now...

Churchill, MB - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada

Current Conditions

6°C

Normals

Max:
11°C
Min:
1°C

Highest Temperature (2011-2012) 7.7°C 2011
Lowest Temperature (2011-2012) -0.5°C 2011

Seems to me it's not even close to the record, which is most likely based on less than 100 years.

Now again we see you being full of it...

 

[mamooth]

So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called LYING!!!

Ah, so anyone who states a fact not included in the next link is "lying!!!".

It's funny, these bizarre logical contortions you twist yourself into for the sake of your crank vendetta. Not to mention your obsession with playing "gotcha!" over minutia, and the way you keep doing a faceplant into a cowpatty when you try. You really seem to be into the self-humiliation.

What in the hell does that actually say? Does it actually make a meaningful point? NO..The record HIGH is going to be higher ya moron.

You're the only one babbling about record highs. My point, as I kept stating directly (a habit of mine), is that it was warmer than average around Hudson Bay, which will rapidly melt the ice there. For example, the high temperature in Churchill on June 9 was 19C. The average high temperature for that date is 10C. 19 is greater than 10, hence, it was warmer than average.

This isn't rocket science. You're just stupid. And in classic Dunning-Kruger fashion, you lack the intelligence to understand how stupid you are. You believe yourself to be incapable of error, so whenever someone points out one of your endless parade of stupid mistakes, your stupid brain concludes that person must be a "liar!!!".

Don't like the time I posted? fine how about now...

Even 1st graders understand what a daily high temperature is, but you don't. Even after it's patiently explained to you, you still keep failing at it, pointlessly comparing temperatures that are _not_ the daily high to the average daily high.

Now, do you have an actual point to make, other than that the only expertise you possess is in creating pissing matches over nothing? I'm already getting bored with it, so try addressing an actual point if you want the discussion to continue.

 

[gslack]

So you didn't get the claim you made from the link, which you gave,making the link you gave us a bogus one in terms of your claim... Yeah that's called LYING!!!

Ah, so anyone who states a fact not included in the next link is "lying!!!".

It's funny, these bizarre logical contortions you twist yourself into for the sake of your crank vendetta. Not to mention your obsession with playing "gotcha!" over minutia, and the way you keep doing a faceplant into a cowpatty when you try. You really seem to be into the self-humiliation.

What in the hell does that actually say? Does it actually make a meaningful point? NO..The record HIGH is going to be higher ya moron.

You're the only one babbling about record highs. My point, as I kept stating directly (a habit of mine), is that it was warmer than average around Hudson Bay, which will rapidly melt the ice there. For example, the high temperature in Churchill on June 9 was 19C. The average high temperature for that date is 10C. 19 is greater than 10, hence, it was warmer than average.

This isn't rocket science. You're just stupid. And in classic Dunning-Kruger fashion, you lack the intelligence to understand how stupid you are. You believe yourself to be incapable of error, so whenever someone points out one of your endless parade of stupid mistakes, your stupid brain concludes that person must be a "liar!!!".

Don't like the time I posted? fine how about now...

Even 1st graders understand what a daily high temperature is, but you don't. Even after it's patiently explained to you, you still keep failing at it, pointlessly comparing temperatures that are _not_ the daily high to the average daily high.

Now, do you have an actual point to make, other than that the only expertise you possess is in creating pissing matches over nothing? I'm already getting bored with it, so try addressing an actual point if you want the discussion to continue.

Anyone who claims something and provides a link as evidence to it, yet the link does not support the claim or even have anything to do with that false claim about it's contents is in fact a liar.... And that is you... You make a claim and provide a link, the link wasn't what you tried to claim it was ergo, you lied...

LOL, if the high for one day is higher than it's average, it just means it's high for that one day dumbass. One day is not a pattern, and the fact I showed that today it wasn't anything remotely like a warming trend. In fact it's showing no trend at all...

Daily Data | Canada's National Climate Archive

Daily Data Report for June 2013

Notes on Data Quality.
date High Low mean
01‡ -0.8 -3.0 -1.9
02‡ 14.3 -3.3 5.5
03‡ 6.4 -1.8 2.3
04‡ 14.8 -3.2 5.8
05‡ 26.8 6.1 16.5
06‡ 29.2 14.5 21.9
07‡ 25.4 7.7 16.6
08‡ 17.8 6.2 12.0
09‡ 18.7 4.3 11.5

Notice the changes? Sure ya do dummy, they show a variation of temps falling and rising only to fall again.. Today it was an average of 6C compared to yesterdays 11.5C average. In fact if you look closely you see a change of ROUGHLY 15C between the 1st and 2nd, and further looking at the mean temps we see the same thing.. Weather isn't indicative of climate moron which you guys claim whenever it suits you.

The bottom line is you took a weather temp forecast and tried to make another bold claim using it, and the actual temp that came about was below your forecasts numbers. You got caught once again being ignorant and false..

 

[Saigon]

I'm sorry again...

You do realize that there are oils wells in the Arctic and instead of collecting it, they burn it. The black soot falls and covers the ice. The Sun hits the dark soot and heats it up causing the ice to melt.

Right. Of course.

There is absolutely no question at all that Arctic ice is disappearing at a catastrophic rate. It's a clear, known, proven and observable scientific fact - as proven on this thread.

Blaming that on oil wells is not a theory that is likely to convince anyone at all.

 

[Saigon]

Sea ice extent in May 2013 averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles). This is 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. As has been the case for the past several years, ice extent was below average in the Barents Sea on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

So, for our resident sceptics and deniars - WHY is this happening?

Please be specific!

 

[Old Rocks]

As Earth warms, Arctic is warming fastest | Earth | EarthSky

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's caused by soot from India and China

 

[mamooth]

Greenland ice sheet melt is certainly increased by soot, and there's at least one expedition forming to study that in detail.

But sea ice, no. Sea ice is too temporary for soot to build up on over the years. Much of the sea ice melts each year, sending the soot to the ocean bottom. What doesn't melt occasionally churns, washing off soot, or flips over on top of other thick ice, hiding the soot.

 

[gslack]

I'm sorry again...

You do realize that there are oils wells in the Arctic and instead of collecting it, they burn it. The black soot falls and covers the ice. The Sun hits the dark soot and heats it up causing the ice to melt.

Right. Of course.

There is absolutely no question at all that Arctic ice is disappearing at a catastrophic rate. It's a clear, known, proven and observable scientific fact - as proven on this thread.

Blaming that on oil wells is not a theory that is likely to convince anyone at all.

Oh why don't you two, or rather you and the other you get a room?

The only proven fact in this thread is that your pal outright lied about his first post, and tried to pass off a forecast as actual weather and then tried to call weather climate..

 

[gslack]

Sea ice extent in May 2013 averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles). This is 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. As has been the case for the past several years, ice extent was below average in the Barents Sea on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

So, for our resident sceptics and deniars - WHY is this happening?

Please be specific!

Since you and the other you don't like to actually quote a source directly, I will shed some much needed perspective light on it...

From your link...

Greater than average ice extent prevailed on the Pacific side of the Arctic in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.

And

There are several open water areas, or polynyas, along the Arctic coast, as is typical for this time of year.

And...

May 2013 was the tenth lowest May in the satellite record, 390,000 square kilometers (151,000 square miles) above the record low of 12.81 million square kilometers (4.95 million square kilometers) in 2011.

And as if the good news never ends...

Through the month of May this year, extent declined at an average rate of 36,400 square kilometers (14,100 square miles) per day, slower than the 1979 to 2000 average of 44,100 square kilometers (17,000 square miles) per day.

And as if that weren't enough, the fact still remains that it is weather not climate. And seasonal ice melting is normal weather..

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, let us shed light on this issue. The Sea Ice anamoly, as seen from satellite, from 1979;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Note that prior to 1997, almost the anamoly was almost all above the zero line. Since that time, almost all below. Not only that, since 2004, it has touched the zero line only once.

In 1979, the sea ice minimum was 6.5 million square kilometers. Last year, about 2.25 square kilometers. And the majority of the melting has occured since 2000.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[gslack]

Why yes, let us shed light on this issue. The Sea Ice anamoly, as seen from satellite, from 1979;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Note that prior to 1997, almost the anamoly was almost all above the zero line. Since that time, almost all below. Not only that, since 2004, it has touched the zero line only once.

In 1979, the sea ice minimum was 6.5 million square kilometers. Last year, about 2.25 square kilometers. And the majority of the melting has occured since 2000.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

I don't care for out of context charts socks... I like context...

SOTC: Sea Ice

Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3 to 4 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small.

Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.

Well the underlined parts kind of tell the tale don't they.. The arctic has been declining 3 to 4 percent PER DECADE. And the Antarctic has been increasing, but they make sure they say the trend is small, and anything prior to satelite data is pretty much guess work. SO the comparisons to ice extent before that time is dubious at best.

 

[Old Rocks]

context;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[gslack]

context;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

My link was from the NSIDC and yours was from the University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign...

LOL, I win..

 

[Old Rocks]

Win what?

Yes, that is a good site;

SOTC: Sea Ice

Combined with record low summertime extent, Arctic sea ice exhibited a new pattern of poor winter recovery. In the past, a low-ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record (see Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues). Although wintertime recovery of Arctic sea ice improved somewhat after 2006, wintertime extents have remained below the long-term average.

A study published in 2007 found a dramatic change in the age of sea ice in the central Arctic Basin since the mid-1980s. In 1987, 57 percent of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and a quarter of that ice was at least 9 years old. By 2007, only 7 percent of the ice pack was at least 5 years old, and virtually none of the ice was at least 9 years old (Maslanik et al, 2007).


The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached a new record low in 2012 of 3.41 million square kilometers, 49 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and 18 percent below the previous record in 2007. The last six years (2007-2012) have seen the six lowest minimum extents in the satellite record (since 1979). Over the last 11 years, a new record was set four times (2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012) and several other years saw near-record lows, particularly 2008 and 2011.

The spring and summer weather conditions play an important role in the minimum extent and the spatial distribution of ice at the end of summer, and help determine if a particular year will be a record low. For example, in 2007, persistent winds through the summer helped to contract the ice to a new minimum record. In 2012, conditions were less favorable to ice retreat through the summer, although a strong cyclone in early August helped break up the ice and enhance melt. Regardless of weather patterns, the Arctic September ice extent shows a consistent downward trend in extent and thickness over the satellite record. For more information visit Poles apart: A record-breaking summer and winter.

 

[Old Rocks]

SOTC: Sea Ice

Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a see-saw pattern of alternating atmospheric pressure at polar and mid-latitudes. The positive phase produces a strong polar vortex, with the mid-latitude jet stream shifted northward. The negative phase produces the opposite conditions. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between 1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid 1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace 2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic, but other factors also played a role.

Since the mid-1990s, the AO has largely been a neutral or negative phase, and the late 1990s and early 2000s brought a weakening of the Beaufort Gyre. However, the longevity of ice in the gyre began to change as a result of warming along the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. In the past, sea ice in this gyre could remain in the Arctic for many years, thickening over time. Beginning in the late 1990s, sea ice began melting in the southern arm of the gyre, thanks to warmer air temperatures and more extensive summer melt north of Alaska and Siberia. Moreover, ice movement out of the Arctic through Fram Strait continued at a high rate despite the change in the AO. Thus warming conditions and wind patterns have been the main drivers of the steeper decline since the late 1990s. Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer (Lindsay and Zhang 2005).

Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).