Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.

[Old Rocks]

Fig 4.Average Arctic sea ice thickness over the ice-covered regions from PIOMAS for a selection of years. The average thickness is calculated for the PIOMAS domain by only including locations where ice is thicker than .15 m.

Fig.3 Monthly Sea Ice Volume from PIOMAS for April and Sep.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Even more significant is the decline in thickness and volume.

 

[Tilly]

My condolences, Old Rocks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh Gawd......not this shit again!!

It's true...Anyone interested in watching planet will keep on doing so...Anyone that isn't probably will say what you just said.

Can you read a graph Matthew?? What is the percentage decrease since 1979??

Like a pack of isolated cannibals. You could make them piss their pants with a mirror and a flashlight..

Well, let's see. Maximum coverage from 1979 to 1989 was about 14.5 million square kilometers. For the last ten years, it has been about 13.5, so that is about a

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

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

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

 

[Old Rocks]

My condolences, Old Rocks.

Thank you. At 72, it is becoming more an increasing occurance. Does not make it any less painful.

 

[Tilly]

My condolences, Old Rocks.

Thank you. At 72, it is becoming more an increasing occurance. Does not make it any less painful.

I'm sure it doesn't. I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's true...Anyone interested in watching planet will keep on doing so...Anyone that isn't probably will say what you just said.

Can you read a graph Matthew?? What is the percentage decrease since 1979??

Like a pack of isolated cannibals. You could make them piss their pants with a mirror and a flashlight..

Well, let's see. Maximum coverage from 1979 to 1989 was about 14.5 million square kilometers. For the last ten years, it has been about 13.5, so that is about a

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

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

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.



http://nsidc.org/arc...-in-the-arctic/

We will see if this continues for the next few months to see if this is the lowest minimum or not.

Great news. Let us know when palm trees and crocodiles return to Alaska.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you read a graph Matthew?? What is the percentage decrease since 1979??

Like a pack of isolated cannibals. You could make them piss their pants with a mirror and a flashlight..

Well, let's see. Maximum coverage from 1979 to 1989 was about 14.5 million square kilometers. For the last ten years, it has been about 13.5, so that is about a

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

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

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

Ever occur to you that dark open COLD WATER is a new MASSIVE carbon sink also? Capable of sinking more CO2 than the equivalent area of a forest?

 

[elektra]

Impressive argument Ms Elektra.Just shove your head in the sand and say nya-
nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya...

What can one say about NOAA and all the government agencies after they got busted falsifying data.

Only a fool would argue a false premise propagated by the government. In this case falisfying data by government employees should be a felony.

 

[IanC]

one of the big complaints about paleoreconstructions is that they 'peek' at the data and results before they choose which data and methodologies they will use in the final paper.

I believe the same type of pre formed conclusions also affect the construction of global datasets. there are a great many degrees of freedom available, and it seems as if every 'improvement' adds to the trend.. I may just be suspicious but how many times does the coin have to land on heads before you check to see if it is a fair coin? the investigation into Karl's pausebuster paper should already have been given the information they requested. I have no doubt that some of the communication would be embarrassing and easily taken 'the wrong way'. but I highly doubt that there was actual fraud there. just somewhat biased choices to get the most favourable results possible out of the available data.

 

[Crick]

one of the big complaints about paleoreconstructions is that they 'peek' at the data and results before they choose which data and methodologies they will use in the final paper.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I believe the same type of pre formed conclusions also affect the construction of global datasets.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

there are a great many degrees of freedom available, and it seems as if every 'improvement' adds to the trend.

Evidence? Links? Proof?

I may just be suspicious

No "may" about it. You are beyond suspicious. You have bought into the unsupportable paranoid fantasy to which all deniers are forced to resort and it colors everything you say here.

the investigation into Karl's pausebuster paper should already have been given the information they requested. I have no doubt that some of the communication would be embarrassing and easily taken 'the wrong way'. but I highly doubt that there was actual fraud there. just somewhat biased choices to get the most favourable results possible out of the available data.

There should have been no "investigation". The way to check science is with more science, not bullshit investigations intended to smear reputations and give false and deceptive impressions and based entirely on preconceptions, bias, prejudice and assumptions of guilt. You pushing such slime while attempting to appear reasonable and objective make me sick to my stomach.

 

[elektra]

Links, proof, links, proof, only the top google search is valid!

 

[9aces]

Links, proof, links, proof, only the top google search is valid!

Crick can't think for himself, so needs someone else to do it for him, hence the link requests.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Fig 4.Average Arctic sea ice thickness over the ice-covered regions from PIOMAS for a selection of years. The average thickness is calculated for the PIOMAS domain by only including locations where ice is thicker than .15 m.

Fig.3 Monthly Sea Ice Volume from PIOMAS for April and Sep.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Even more significant is the decline in thickness and volume.

Note the new trend? OR are you taking graph reading lessons from crick again?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Links, proof, links, proof, only the top google search is valid!

Crick has no cognitive thought skills. He spews out exactly what he is told to and fails to think logically or critically. Even when shown EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE he can not think for himself and demands a link from someone he and other alarmists think is more credible.. GO Figure.. The earth observation isn't even credible any more.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah Silly Billy, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of the Corps of Discovery seeing a hydrothermal explosion at Yellowstone, in 1812. Of course, the Expedition was over in 1806. And the journal that was supposed to be in, by John Colter, who never was known to write anything at all, let alone a journal, and was in Missouri in 1812. That is the kind of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Silly Billy pulls out of his ass.

However, those graphs are from the University of Washington, and show the rapidity with which ice volume is declining.

 

[jc456]

Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.



http://nsidc.org/arc...-in-the-arctic/

We will see if this continues for the next few months to see if this is the lowest minimum or not.

Why do you suppose?

 

[jc456]

Impressive argument Ms Elektra.Just shove your head in the sand and say nya-
nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya...

Or post up how 58 is greater than 62, please either you can explain or it's you with sand issues.

 

[jc456]

Oh Gawd......not this shit again!!

It's true...Anyone interested in watching planet will keep on doing so...Anyone that isn't probably will say what you just said.

Can you read a graph Matthew?? What is the percentage decrease since 1979??

Like a pack of isolated cannibals. You could make them piss their pants with a mirror and a flashlight..

Well, let's see. Maximum coverage from 1979 to 1989 was about 14.5 million square kilometers. For the last ten years, it has been about 13.5, so that is about a

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

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

But why would the ice extant change?

 

[jc456]

Well, let's see. Maximum coverage from 1979 to 1989 was about 14.5 million square kilometers. For the last ten years, it has been about 13.5, so that is about a

.......................... You were sooo close to being right Roxy.. Go ahead use a calculator...

What happpened there? A GW warming caused forest fire start in your den?

No, a phone call came in from my brother about a funeral for a death in the family. Hit the post button without thinking about it.

So, the decline for the average for those ten year periods is about 7%. So, what has happened to the decline of the lowest extent, and how does that relate to the the decline of the highest extent?

For the lowest extent, in September, from 1979 to 1989, is about 5.25 million square kilometers. For 2005 to 2015, it is about 3.25 million square kilometers. That is about a 38% decline. That is very significant.

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

Heck I was gonna give 9% on the January ice number !! Matthew is still calculating I guess.
Is the summer gap REALLY that surprising? I don't think so.. Ice melts at 32deg. And you got about 60 day window determining the magnitude of that event. So it could either be 6 days at 33degF or 60 days at 32.1degF.. Approx -- the same volume of ice melt. So at SOME POINT -- that extra 1.0deg in warming is gonna melt a SHIPLOAD of ice isn't it? It's a very non-linear and non-interesting effect of Global Warming. Because that summer melt is not so much an indicator of the SIZE of the global warming effect -- it's more of a threshold at which there WILL be ice or there WONT be ice at peak summer.. ICE -- is a terrible thermometer. (As are tree rings and mud bugs and ice cores)

Yes, and that melt, and open water, changes the way the jet stream acts, which affects our weather and agriculture. That melt affects the rapidity of the melt of the permafrost. Then we have the problem of how much additiional GHGs that the melt is releasing. And that melt, and that of the clathrates are both unknowns. We simply don't know whether that will be rapid, or slow. And if it is rapid, how is that going to affect the climate. A grand experiment that we are running, with no controls and no going back, no matter how it turns out.

Ever occur to you that dark open COLD WATER is a new MASSIVE carbon sink also? Capable of sinking more CO2 than the equivalent area of a forest?

The issue I have today is what CO2 in the Arctic? Satellites don't show it, no human lives there. So what CO2?