Arctic sea ice hits record low

[jc456]

Nothing noteworthy has happened on the PICT graph (the crude ice thickness

PIOMAS January 2015 - Arctic Sea Ice

That sure looks like one hell of a thickening.

looks like that line is going up. hmmmmmm you're lying.

 

[excalibur]

Pre satellite data is not the same as satellite data, for obvious reasons, so apples / oranges. But as I mentioned, there is satellite data back to the 1960's with NIMBUS.

There is also a problem wit that chart where pre satellite meets satellite.

First you say it's wrong _not_ to show the pre-satellite data. And then when I show it, you spin completely about and declare it's wrong to show the data.

Could you make up your mind?

Your chart starts c.1953. No satellites then, thus conflating pre satellite data with satellite data. The chart also plays a neat trick when they hand off from pre satellite to satellite.

 

[excalibur]

 

[mamooth]

We get all that. The point in question is what you said in post #8.

There is actually satellite data from the early 1970's until 1979, which shows that the AGW crowd chooses to ignore. Why? Does not fit their meme

So, first you told us all how awful it was that the pre-1979 data wasn't being displayed.

We then displayed the pre-1979 data.

Now you're telling us how awful it it that the pre-1979 data _is_ being displayed.

Why the sudden complete flipflop?

It appears as if you're cherrypicking, deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your claims. Good data exists prior to 1973, and you refuse to use it. Throwing out good data is a mark of pseudoscience.

 

[Old Rocks]

Figure 1: Arctic temperature change reconstructed by Kaufmann et al. (2009)including data updated for corrigendum and including instrumental measurements for the Arctic region (60 to 90° N) from NASA.



Figure 2: Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed fromproxy data by Kinnard et al., with a 40-year low pass filter applied. Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, and thus it is a close approximation of current conditions, even though the extent is not as low as current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing.

Arctic sea ice extent in the past

Excalibur, you post a graph, post where it is from. Otherwise the only assumption can be that the source is worthless.

 

[IanC]

Ex's graph is from IPCC. As old fraud knows very well.

 

[excalibur]

We get all that. The point in question is what you said in post #8.

There is actually satellite data from the early 1970's until 1979, which shows that the AGW crowd chooses to ignore. Why? Does not fit their meme

So, first you told us all how awful it was that the pre-1979 data wasn't being displayed.

We then displayed the pre-1979 data.

Now you're telling us how awful it it that the pre-1979 data _is_ being displayed.

Why the sudden complete flipflop?

It appears as if you're cherrypicking, deliberately leaving out the data that contradicts your claims. Good data exists prior to 1973, and you refuse to use it. Throwing out good data is a mark of pseudoscience.

There is no satellite date from c. 1953, when the chart you posted begins. They then mix non satellite data in with early satellite data later on, without any delineation.

The satellite cherry picking is the AGW crowd who always begin at 1979. Note that that is the usual staring point for them. They deliberately ignore the satellite data, as I posted in post #23. It doesn't fit their meme.

 

[Katzndogz]

Here is the month by month actual data.

Arctic Sea Ice Ice thickness and volume

The data says nothing particularly unusual going on in the arctic. What has happened is that by selecting data the computer models show a dramatic loss of sea ice. You are looking at computer models. When confronted with data that doesn't agree with the models it's called an anamoly and dismissed.

 

[Mr. H.]

Planet Earth... simply not accommodating living organisms for 4.5 billion years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We are a biosphere which uses two halves and differing temps to drive our climatic systems, Yet they want to focus on the Arctic while ignoring the Antarctic Ice levels.. One is breaking records every day while the other is not.. We are worrying about the wrong pole and it may cost us millions of lives.

As the earth moves away from the sun and we enter the portion of the solar phase where cooling is pronounced we are worrying about the cooling north pole and its lack albedo which is the only thing keeping the earth from glaciation. If the Northern hemisphere reaches near cooling equilibrium and the polar jets retracts were in big trouble..

 

[mamooth]

Ex's graph is from IPCC. As old fraud knows very well.

Normal people see better data replacing old data and say "hey, good science". Cultists see it and declare a conspiracy. That's why nobody takes cultists seriously.

And here's another image. Based on the data here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

which comes from this paper:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2001/00000033/00000001/art00071

Naturally, Ian will deny the data, being the graph came from SS. His obsessive vendetta against SS is his standard excuse to deny any data he doesn't like, even though SS never actually creates the data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ex's graph is from IPCC. As old fraud knows very well.

Normal people see better data replacing old data and say "hey, good science". Cultists see it and declare a conspiracy. That's why nobody takes cultists seriously.

And here's another image. Based on the data here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

which comes from this paper:

20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data ingentaconnect

Naturally, Ian will deny the data, being the graph came from SS. His obsessive vendetta against SS is his standard excuse to deny any data he doesn't like, even though SS never actually creates the data.

Skeptical Science OR SS.... The same one that deletes all dissenting points of view and data which refute their ludicrous positions. The graph you post has been shredded many times over. John Cook is a shill and a left wing hack. very little of what he posts has any basis in fact.

Cooks graph above is done by MODEL, not by actual data. The actual data shows no such decline.

 

[mamooth]

No, that's actual data. If you'd have read the link to the paper, you would have known that. But since denier cultists make it a point of pride never to look at actual data (as the cult forbids it), you didn't know.

You deniers are all liars, you know. Denying data solely because you don't like it is lying. And it's all you do. Your stalinist political cult commands, and you obey.

 

[excalibur]

Models equals the old saying: GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. The climate models have crashed and burned.

 

[excalibur]

Ex's graph is from IPCC. As old fraud knows very well.

Normal people see better data replacing old data and say "hey, good science". Cultists see it and declare a conspiracy. That's why nobody takes cultists seriously.

And here's another image. Based on the data here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

which comes from this paper:

20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data ingentaconnect

Naturally, Ian will deny the data, being the graph came from SS. His obsessive vendetta against SS is his standard excuse to deny any data he doesn't like, even though SS never actually creates the data.

You expect that to be taken seriously? And it flies in the face of the warming c.1910 - 1940, and data on that era, from Russia, from Scandinavia, from other sources that reported much less and much thinner ice in the c.1901 - 1940 period.

In any event, who is to say what levels of Arctic Ice in the summer proves. But the warmists alleged it meant doom.

 

[mamooth]

I expected you to find some creative reasons to deny all the data that contradicts the conclusions that were predetermined by your political cult. And you didn't disappoint. After all, you're called "deniers" for a good reason.

 

[excalibur]

The chart you posted is junk science,

Pisarev - Arctic 1920-40

 

[Old Rocks]

Authors: Walsh, John E.; Chapman, William L.

Source: Annals of Glaciology, Volume 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448(5)

Publisher: International Glaciological Society


Refund Policy)

Buy Article:

• < previous article
• |
• view table of contents
• |
• next article >

Abstract:
In order to extend diagnoses of recent sea-ice variations beyond the past few decades, a century-scale digital dataset of Arctic sea-ice coverage has been compiled. For recent decades, the compilation utilizes satellite-derived hemispheric datasets. Regional datasets based primarily on ship reports and aerial reconnaissance are the primary inputs for the earlier part of the 20th century. While the various datasets contain some discrepancies, they capture the same general variations during their period of overlap. The outstanding feature of the time series of total hemispheric ice extent is a decrease that has accelerated during the past several decades. The decrease is greatest in summer and weakest in winter, contrary to the seasonality of the greenhouse changes projected by most global climate models. The primary spatial modes of sea-ice variability, diagnosed in terms of empirical orthogonal functions, also show a strong seasonality. The first winter mode is dominated by an opposition of anomalies in the western and eastern North Atlantic, corresponding to the well-documented North Atlantic Oscillation. The primary summer mode depicts an anomaly of the same sign over nearly the entire Arctic and captures the recent trend of sea-ice coverage.

20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data ingentaconnect

Well Ex, looks like you are just another flap-yapper. The source is a peer reviewed journal.

 

[IanC]

Figure 1: Arctic temperature change reconstructed by Kaufmann et al. (2009)including data updated for corrigendum and including instrumental measurements for the Arctic region (60 to 90° N) from NASA.



Figure 2: Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed fromproxy data by Kinnard et al., with a 40-year low pass filter applied. Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, and thus it is a close approximation of current conditions, even though the extent is not as low as current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing.

Arctic sea ice extent in the past

Excalibur, you post a graph, post where it is from. Otherwise the only assumption can be that the source is worthless.

here we see Old Rock's fraud being evident again. last fall I started a thread on corrections that were made to Kaufman 2009. Old Rocks participated in that thread, and I believe he put up the original Kaufman graph in rebuttal. here is the revised Kaufman graph after some (but not all) known corrections were made.

present day arctic temps are not the warmest evahhhhhhhh.

and, yet another proxy has been admitted to be upsidedown. I have no idea how much of an extra change that will make but the last similar one that was flipped made most of the change in the above graph.

to reiterate.....Old Rocks continues to use outdated papers and graphs long after he has been shown that they are incorrect. I am like everyone else, I like to 'win' arguments. but I wouldnt stoop so low as to use information that I knew was wrong.

 

[mamooth]

So you cut off your graph at 2000 and then claim to be an honest data broker?

Does not compute.

And you're using CultOfMcIntyre nonsense, which is always assumed to be fudged unless independent evidence shows otherwise.