25 year satellite map of old ice disappearing from Arctic. Pubs drone on about new ice that is irrel

[Crick]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

At one time much of north America was covered by ice, are you saying we should strive to get that back also?

Cadillac Island off the coast of Maine, in Acadia National Park, was once covered with 2,000 feet of ice.

We have survived that much warming, we can survive a bit more.

How many modern humans with modern infrastructure were around when Cadillac Island was covered with 2,000 feet of ice? If it wasn't several billion, then we DIDN'T survive through that much warming, did we.

 

[Crick]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

Well in that case, let's waste $10s of trillions on less reliable, more expensive "green" energy.

Almost right. Got everything except it wouldn't be a waste, the tens of trillions it will cost will be orders of magnitude less than what it will cost if we don't and considering that most of those technologies are fuel-less and have far less moving parts and lower operating temperatures than fossil fuel power systems, your claim of decreased reliability fails as well.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh no! Just, ummm, oh no, Franco!! So what should we do?? Whatever should we do??

Pay more taxes! Quickly! It's all that can save you from the doom that is global warming! Mother nature wants you to pay the government more money or she's going to make it snow, err I mean warm, err whatever. Pay more taxes!

Ahhhh.Pay more taxes and let government fix it...
That's the ticket.

It's fixed everything else. We all get to retire millionaires because of SS, we have full healthcare because of Medicare and Medicaid, Hell you don't even have to work for it with welfare. Poverty was smitten down with the war against poverty you know. If only we could apply that level of success to such things as college, healthcare and sick time. Fucking paradise I'm telling ya!

Just look t the governments record of accomplishments and you will soon agree they are the end all to end all of success right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

Well in that case, let's waste $10s of trillions on less reliable, more expensive "green" energy.

Almost right. Got everything except it wouldn't be a waste, the tens of trillions it will cost will be orders of magnitude less than what it will cost if we don't and considering that most of those technologies are fuel-less and have far less moving parts and lower operating temperatures than fossil fuel power systems, your claim of decreased reliability fails as well.

Got everything except it wouldn't be a waste, the tens of trillions it will cost will be orders of magnitude less than what it will cost if we don't

You bet, because after we waste all that money we'll have no more storms, droughts, floods or hurricanes.
And the oceans will stop rising. LOL!

and considering that most of those technologies are fuel-less and have far less moving parts and lower operating temperatures than fossil fuel power systems, your claim of decreased reliability fails as well

At what percent of capacity do these marvelous fuel-less technologies typically produce?
30%? 40%?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not many people can manage to get politics, insults and namecalling all into a simple weather report. But little haterpubdupes manages all three, in not much more than one line.

Good to know he has one talent, anyway.

Just the facts, chump. And of course you don't know the difference between climate and weather, not to mention old ice and new. Change the channel.

Old ice is different from new ice?

Man, the things I learn from the Nutty AGWCult

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Freezing cold doesn't mean there's no warming you know.

True, the average winter temp can warm from 15 F to 20 F, but it'll still be damn cold.

According to all of your science you like to claim we don't like the actual number would be 15.001 F as a warming trend we all need to be worried about.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Without scientists, we wouldn't even have satellite maps.

Holy fuck! Now there's a post that makes this thread worth while!

 

[konradv]

According to all of your science you like to claim we don't like the actual number would be 15.001 F as a warming trend we all need to be worried about.

Cite? Sounds like something you pulled out of your ass. Remember, free speech is a right, NOT a duty. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.

 

[westwall]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

Oh, it very much exists. Mans role in it is what is being argued, and the actual evidence for that, is non existent.

On Fox etc lol, chump.
Search Results
Ice core | Facts and information about Ice core at Climap
climap.net › Encyclopedia
Ice cores are used by paleoclimatologists for determining ancient climate conditions. From ice cores the scientists are able to gain information about past climate ...
Ice core basics - Antarctic Glaciers
Antarctic Glaciers › Glaciers and Climate › Ice cores
by B Davies - ‎Related articles
Jan 9, 2015 - How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? ... the ice, that continuity to today is somewhat complicated by the fact that bubbles don't ...
Glossary: Ice core - GreenFacts
GreenFacts - Facts on Health and the Environment › Home › Glossary › GHI
Since the different layers of ice are formed over time through build-up of snow, ice cores provide information on climate from different periods (up to almost one ...
ice core | geology | Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/.../ice-co...
Encyclopaedia Britannica
ice core, long cylinder of glacial ice recovered by drilling through glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and ... Ice cores were begun in the 1960s to complement other climatological studies based on .... Hyenas and Aardwolves: Fact or Fiction?
NOVA Online | Warnings from the Ice | Stories in the Ice - PBS
NOVA Online Warnings from the Ice Stories in the Ice
PBS
You could see what the world was like when ice sheets a thousand feet thick ... Scientists collect ice cores by driving a hollow tube deep into the miles-thick ice

etc etc etc etc etc...

And this tells us what exactly? Be specific. I don't think you have slightest idea what your links say.

 

[Old Rocks]

The warmers fear about the ice coverage is that with less more Sun will be absorbed and thus heating will be even greater. Go to any site you want and you will see that the ice coverage has been pretty much tracking within standard deviation. As Franco blurted correctly, even though he did mean to, is that it is irrelevant if it is new ice or old ice that is just another bit of BS the warmers want to say trying to seem intelligent and trying to scare the weak minded.

Imagine that this hoopla about ice reduction were true...

-Reduction in ice will create a positive feedback loop. Ice reflects solar radiation off the surface and back out into space. As ice is eliminated it is replaced by darker surface substances which absorb more radiation.

-Increased solar radiation will make solar energy a greater commodity.

-Warmer climates will reduce the need to generate heat, and thus significantly reduce human consumption of electricity (and subsequently fossil fuels like coal and natural gas), thus reducing the carbon footprint of the human race.


Seems to me that global warming makes for liberal paradise.

Arrhenius thought that after he demonstrated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could result in a significant warming. However, we have learned a lot in the intervening 119 years.

If there were, say, 500,000,000 humans depending on weather dependent crops rather than 7,000,000,000, that might just be the case. We could just increase the area planted in various parts of the world, and make up for extreme weather events in one part with a surplus in another. However, with 7,000,000,000 humans dependent on said agriculture, we do not have that luxury. And then there is the matter of trillions of dollars of infrastructure and cropland at risk as the oceans rise. And the matter of an increasingly acidic ocean affecting the food chain in our oceans, a food chain already stressed by our overuse.

 

[Old Rocks]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

Oh, it very much exists. Mans role in it is what is being argued, and the actual evidence for that, is non existent.

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise.

Tell me, Walleyes, is it a grand conspriracy by 95%+ of the scientists in the world? Are they all they all in on a conspiracy to lie to us about the climate, and basic atmospheric physics? Are they conspiring to pollute your precious body fluids?

 

[Old Rocks]

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol.

No, scientists don't know those things. You don't know what information they have, or the validity of their hypotheses, or the soundness of their conclusions. Because you don't even know what it is.

Ice cores have become one of the left's favorite talking points when it comes to the global warming discussion. They say that ice cores tell us the temperature of the Earth tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sometimes, over a million years ago! But what you don't know is how ice cores are used. If you did, you'd be faced with how useless they are in the way they've been parroted.

This is how ice cores are used in climate science:

Drill out an ice core. Let's say it's 20 meters long. The ice core becomes a sort of tangible timeline. The top of the ice core represents the present, the bottom of the ice core represents the time when the the bottom ice formed, and everything in between represents the passage of time in between then and now. Thus, a given point (let's say 10 meters down) represents a certain period of time. The extrapolation of dates from ice cores does actually have a good degree of reliability.

A sample is taken from a given "moment in time" from the ice core. That sample is analyzed for composition. Most pertinently, they look for the amount of CO2 dissolved in water which composes the ice from the sample. From this, they then extrapolate the approximate atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the point in history represented by that portion of the ice core. This is still reasonably possible, though there are important considerations that shroud the accuracy of this process, which tend to be ignored.

But where things really fall apart is the final step. Using this extrapolated atmospheric CO2 figure, they extrapolate the Earth's average temperature for that moment of history. This calculation is done using data from the 150 year temperature record and measurements of atmospheric CO2 in modern times, based on the same hypothesized belief that atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly tied to average temperatures. When this process is finished, the results are presented and are claimed to be evidence in support of the very premise that was used to achieve the results, i.e. that climactic changes are linked to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The entire process is question begging.

You would get a failing grade for lack of adaquete research in any class I have ever taken for that analysis.

CSA - Discovery Guides

When ice cores are drilled they are 4-5 inches in diameter and cut in lengths of about 1 meter to be catalogued and stored for analysis. Some projects allow for the chemical analyses to be done at the drill site; however other projects require the cores to be shipped and stored in cold rooms.For scientists interested in reconstructing climatic histories, the chemical composition of the ice and dust contained in it allows for a wide variety of analytical techniques, as mentioned above. This is a valuable characteristic of ice as it allows scientists to study many proxy parameters, enabling data comparisons from other ice cores and other paleo-proxy sources within the same ice core. This can be extremely useful in helping to determine age/depth relationships of ice cores (ice core dating) and test for data quality. Dating paleo-records is arguably the most important aspect of paleoclimatic reconstructions, as time series that cannot be placed in time are essentially useless.

Analytic Techniques:

Ice cores can contain several forms of paleo-proxy data that estimate standard meteorological parameters to help reconstruct past climates. Some of the more common meteorological data that can be reflected in ice include air temperature, atmospheric circulation variations, precipitation amount, atmospheric composition, solar activity, and records of volcanic eruptions. These parameters can be represented by corresponding proxy records including stable isotopes, radioisotopes, dust composition, snow accumulation rate, air bubbles, and volcanic ash or sulfate.

Parameter
Proxy Analysis

Paleotemperatures
Summer
Annual cycles (Days with snowfall)
Melt Layers
dD, d18O

Humidity Deuterium excess
Paleo-accumulation Seasonal signals, 10Be
Volcanic activity Conductivity, SO4
Tropospheric turbidity ECM, microparticle content,
trace elements
Wind speed Particle size, concentration
Atmospheric composition: Natural
Variations and man-made changes CO2, CH4, N2O content,
glaciochemistry
Atmospheric circulation Glaciochemistry (major ions)
Solar activity 10Be
Ice Core Sources of Paleoclimatic Information

All of the modern analytical techniques used to extract these proxy records have been developed and honed over time, and with the assistance of better technology and new ideas more accurate methods of ice core analyses are being developed. Before scientists can begin reconstructing past climates from paleo-proxies derived from ice cores however, the ice must be drilled and analyzed.

 

[Old Rocks]

The warmers fear about the ice coverage is that with less more Sun will be absorbed and thus heating will be even greater. Go to any site you want and you will see that the ice coverage has been pretty much tracking within standard deviation. As Franco blurted correctly, even though he did mean to, is that it is irrelevant if it is new ice or old ice that is just another bit of BS the warmers want to say trying to seem intelligent and trying to scare the weak minded.

Buddy boy, weak minded dolts like you don't know enough to know what is scary and what is not.

Old ice is thick, and not easily broken up by a storm, can have a couple of meters melted off, and still have plenty of ice underneath. New ice is thin, eaily broken up by storms, and melts rather quickly come spring. And that is why we see this;





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

 

[westwall]

The warmers fear about the ice coverage is that with less more Sun will be absorbed and thus heating will be even greater. Go to any site you want and you will see that the ice coverage has been pretty much tracking within standard deviation. As Franco blurted correctly, even though he did mean to, is that it is irrelevant if it is new ice or old ice that is just another bit of BS the warmers want to say trying to seem intelligent and trying to scare the weak minded.

Buddy boy, weak minded dolts like you don't know enough to know what is scary and what is not.

Old ice is thick, and not easily broken up by a storm, can have a couple of meters melted off, and still have plenty of ice underneath. New ice is thin, eaily broken up by storms, and melts rather quickly come spring. And that is why we see this;





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

You were saying?

Good news for Arctic, as sea ice volume up by half




Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014


BBC News - Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014

Good news for Arctic as sea ice volume up by half

 

[westwall]

The warmers fear about the ice coverage is that with less more Sun will be absorbed and thus heating will be even greater. Go to any site you want and you will see that the ice coverage has been pretty much tracking within standard deviation. As Franco blurted correctly, even though he did mean to, is that it is irrelevant if it is new ice or old ice that is just another bit of BS the warmers want to say trying to seem intelligent and trying to scare the weak minded.

Imagine that this hoopla about ice reduction were true...

-Reduction in ice will create a positive feedback loop. Ice reflects solar radiation off the surface and back out into space. As ice is eliminated it is replaced by darker surface substances which absorb more radiation.

-Increased solar radiation will make solar energy a greater commodity.

-Warmer climates will reduce the need to generate heat, and thus significantly reduce human consumption of electricity (and subsequently fossil fuels like coal and natural gas), thus reducing the carbon footprint of the human race.


Seems to me that global warming makes for liberal paradise.

Arrhenius thought that after he demonstrated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could result in a significant warming. However, we have learned a lot in the intervening 119 years.

If there were, say, 500,000,000 humans depending on weather dependent crops rather than 7,000,000,000, that might just be the case. We could just increase the area planted in various parts of the world, and make up for extreme weather events in one part with a surplus in another. However, with 7,000,000,000 humans dependent on said agriculture, we do not have that luxury. And then there is the matter of trillions of dollars of infrastructure and cropland at risk as the oceans rise. And the matter of an increasingly acidic ocean affecting the food chain in our oceans, a food chain already stressed by our overuse.

And you conveniently ignore his follow up paper where he reduces by half his prior estimates. Why is that?

 

[depotoo]

97%, dear and it was only 10,000 something they emailed, and a little over 3000 responded, in which they determined only 79 had any climate science they considered acceptable. 97% of 79 said yes to their 2 question survey.

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

Oh, it very much exists. Mans role in it is what is being argued, and the actual evidence for that, is non existent.

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states otherwise.

Tell me, Walleyes, is it a grand conspriracy by 95%+ of the scientists in the world? Are they all they all in on a conspiracy to lie to us about the climate, and basic atmospheric physics? Are they conspiring to pollute your precious body fluids?

 

[skookerasbil]

But the OP doesn't understand.........

Nobody cares. All this "climate change" shit.......its all nothing but babble in the real world.........an internet hobby.

We've all been hearing the doomsday bomb throwing assholes getting it wrong for 2 decades now, which is why in 2014, every polls shows nobody is caring about "global warming". Been seeing these dopey threads from progressives in here for years and it hasn't changed a thing in terms of public policy.

Fossil fuels still DOMINATE and renewables are still a joke and every single projection ( including Obama's EIA ) shows renewables will be a joke decades from now.

Arctic ice?


Nobody cares

 

[SwimExpert]

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol.

No, scientists don't know those things. You don't know what information they have, or the validity of their hypotheses, or the soundness of their conclusions. Because you don't even know what it is.

Ice cores have become one of the left's favorite talking points when it comes to the global warming discussion. They say that ice cores tell us the temperature of the Earth tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sometimes, over a million years ago! But what you don't know is how ice cores are used. If you did, you'd be faced with how useless they are in the way they've been parroted.

This is how ice cores are used in climate science:

Drill out an ice core. Let's say it's 20 meters long. The ice core becomes a sort of tangible timeline. The top of the ice core represents the present, the bottom of the ice core represents the time when the the bottom ice formed, and everything in between represents the passage of time in between then and now. Thus, a given point (let's say 10 meters down) represents a certain period of time. The extrapolation of dates from ice cores does actually have a good degree of reliability.

A sample is taken from a given "moment in time" from the ice core. That sample is analyzed for composition. Most pertinently, they look for the amount of CO2 dissolved in water which composes the ice from the sample. From this, they then extrapolate the approximate atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the point in history represented by that portion of the ice core. This is still reasonably possible, though there are important considerations that shroud the accuracy of this process, which tend to be ignored.

But where things really fall apart is the final step. Using this extrapolated atmospheric CO2 figure, they extrapolate the Earth's average temperature for that moment of history. This calculation is done using data from the 150 year temperature record and measurements of atmospheric CO2 in modern times, based on the same hypothesized belief that atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly tied to average temperatures. When this process is finished, the results are presented and are claimed to be evidence in support of the very premise that was used to achieve the results, i.e. that climactic changes are linked to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The entire process is question begging.

You would get a failing grade for lack of adaquete research in any class I have ever taken for that analysis.

CSA - Discovery Guides

When ice cores are drilled they are 4-5 inches in diameter and cut in lengths of about 1 meter to be catalogued and stored for analysis. Some projects allow for the chemical analyses to be done at the drill site; however other projects require the cores to be shipped and stored in cold rooms.For scientists interested in reconstructing climatic histories, the chemical composition of the ice and dust contained in it allows for a wide variety of analytical techniques, as mentioned above. This is a valuable characteristic of ice as it allows scientists to study many proxy parameters, enabling data comparisons from other ice cores and other paleo-proxy sources within the same ice core. This can be extremely useful in helping to determine age/depth relationships of ice cores (ice core dating) and test for data quality. Dating paleo-records is arguably the most important aspect of paleoclimatic reconstructions, as time series that cannot be placed in time are essentially useless.

Analytic Techniques:

Ice cores can contain several forms of paleo-proxy data that estimate standard meteorological parameters to help reconstruct past climates. Some of the more common meteorological data that can be reflected in ice include air temperature, atmospheric circulation variations, precipitation amount, atmospheric composition, solar activity, and records of volcanic eruptions. These parameters can be represented by corresponding proxy records including stable isotopes, radioisotopes, dust composition, snow accumulation rate, air bubbles, and volcanic ash or sulfate.

Parameter
Proxy Analysis

Paleotemperatures
Summer
Annual cycles (Days with snowfall)
Melt Layers
dD, d18O

Humidity Deuterium excess
Paleo-accumulation Seasonal signals, 10Be
Volcanic activity Conductivity, SO4
Tropospheric turbidity ECM, microparticle content,
trace elements
Wind speed Particle size, concentration
Atmospheric composition: Natural
Variations and man-made changes CO2, CH4, N2O content,
glaciochemistry
Atmospheric circulation Glaciochemistry (major ions)
Solar activity 10Be
Ice Core Sources of Paleoclimatic Information

All of the modern analytical techniques used to extract these proxy records have been developed and honed over time, and with the assistance of better technology and new ideas more accurate methods of ice core analyses are being developed. Before scientists can begin reconstructing past climates from paleo-proxies derived from ice cores however, the ice must be drilled and analyzed.

I'm sorry, were you going to say something of relevance to what I've said? Or are you just talking to hear the sound of your voice?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

 

[mamooth]

So Frank has charged out of his commie closet, and is proudly waving his commie flag.

Any other deniers want to join him? Wave that flag enough, and maybe DearLeaderKim will let you live in North Korea. That would make everyone happier. Deniers would be in their totalitarian paradise where the science is whatever DearLeader says it is, and we wouldn't have deniers around.