Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[westwall]

That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal". With all do respect: from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been 75 to 80 degrees and bone dry in the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.

And Europe has been gripped in record breaking cold. You are ceertainly correct to be sceptical, but please look at the whole planet, not just your little corner of it.

 

[sparky]

you do realize global warming is a grand misnomer, don't you? ~S~

 

[code1211]

This is a good recovery of sea ice extant this year. Unfortunately, it is only single year ice. This extent of the ice melt this summer will determine if we have actually seen any recovery of ice. But even this little is a good thing.

We will see what the melt is this summer, and what the clathrates do off the East Siberian Artic Shelf. We need a low melt, and a much lower outgassing than last year. We get a high melt, and an increase in that outgassing, then this winters freeze simply was an anolomy from a double La Nina.

Geee, I wonder what it was like way back in 1959???? Why, looky here! Here is a recollection from a sailor on the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole on multiple occasions from 1958 to 1959.



“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

- Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000"


NASA and multi-year Arctic ice and historical context | .....Aaron's EnvironMental Corner.....

Actual eye witness reports as opposed to fear mongered denial of reality?

This can't stand.

 

[sparky]

It does if one has an agenda.....~S~

 

[Political Junky]

Hmmmmm...

Shouldn't there already be a post with the link to the research of Svante Arrhenius in this thread?

Oh Hell!

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

You are obviously mistaken. When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Obviously you do not.

I thought cons didn't believe in science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png

How is that back to normal?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I know that only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

That's as surprising as the fact that 0% of Jews are Catholics.

Why would someone who distrusts science and whose number one pursuit in life is making money want to become a scientist? Its not the road to riches.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hmmmmm...

Shouldn't there already be a post with the link to the research of Svante Arrhenius in this thread?

Oh Hell!

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

You are obviously mistaken. When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Obviously you do not.

Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees. What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

 

[westwall]

Obviously you do not.

Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees. What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

 

[daveman]

When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?

Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.

Climate science works that way.

Real science doesn't.

 

[daveman]

Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees. What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain ******* stupid

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb ****. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

 

[IanC]

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb ****. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

too bad the cryosphere and the rest of the planet arent complying with your CAGW predictions. how many times do you guys have to be wrong before you recognise that you arent 'the smartest guy in the room'? and your moral high ground seems to be in a bad neighbourhood too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb ****. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

Where are those "Wider and wider swings" in the graph?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb ****. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

too bad the cryosphere and the rest of the planet arent complying with your CAGW predictions. how many times do you guys have to be wrong before you recognise that you arent 'the smartest guy in the room'? and your moral high ground seems to be in a bad neighbourhood too.

Ahhh, Spin the Wheel of Climate Change, you buzzkill

 

[saveliberty]

Oh noes carbon dioxide! Oh noes methane! Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh noes carbon dioxide! Oh noes methane! Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.

Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.

 

[Big Fitz]

Dat's good to know...

... possum was `fraid it would all melt...

... an' den Santa Claus would drown inna ocean.

And what would we do with all that Gin left over with no ice?

 

[westwall]

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb ****. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

The models havn't come close on ANYTHING you boob. And what catastrophic effects? The world is humming along just fine. Your religion is failing, but the world is doing fine. So sad for you.