Have you noticed this?

[Crick]

Look what a large portion of the extent readings are below the baseline average.

With the exception of about ten days in 2012, the extents values during these five months, haven't gone above the baseline average in five years.

 

[SSDD]

Have you noticed that your baseline covers a pitifully small period of time...have you also noticed that historical documents from people who have sailed those waters, and historical news makes it clear that in the early 20th century, there was considerably less ice than now?

 

[Crick]

Have you noticed that your evidence of that is complete crap? Photos of open ocean? You actually want to put that forward as evidence?

The baseline average in that plot covers 30 years, includes almost ALL available satellite data and includes the oldest of the traces.

But you've got a picture of open ocean somewhere.

Right.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares s0n

 

[flacaltenn]

Have you noticed that your evidence of that is complete crap? Photos of open ocean? You actually want to put that forward as evidence?

The baseline average in that plot covers 30 years, includes almost ALL available satellite data and includes the oldest of the traces.

But you've got a picture of open ocean somewhere.

Right.

Have you noticed that by the DEFINITION OF AVERAGE, that maybe 1/2 the half years in the BASELINE PERIOD were "below average" ???

That's why there is a grey area to show the EXPECTED deviation... No -- i don't think that would have occurred to you...

 

[Crick]

No kidding? Really? And did you know that by the definition of average, if extents aren't shrinking, the odds of five in a row being on one side of mean is 1/2e5 or 1 out of 32

 

[flacaltenn]

No kidding? Really? And did you know that by the definition of average, if extents aren't shrinking, the odds of five in a row being on one side of mean is 1/2e5 or 0.03125:1

Where the hell did you get that factoid? You evidently didn't read or understand the constrainsts for that evaluation.. Hint --- it's NOT an independent random draw.

 

[mamooth]

Have you noticed that your baseline covers a pitifully small period of time...have you also noticed that historical documents from people who have sailed those waters, and historical news makes it clear that in the early 20th century, there was considerably less ice than now?

The actual historical records from the Danish over that period show much more ice than we have now. For example, this chart of August 1932 shows an ice extent very similar to June 2014, two months earlier in the melt season. The Danish charts are by far the best historical data available, and they flat out contradict you, hence you'll find a reason to handwave it all away in favor of a newspaper clipping.

Arctic Sea Ice Charts from Danish Meteorological Institute, 1893 - 1956

 

[Crick]

No kidding? Really? And did you know that by the definition of average, if extents aren't shrinking, the odds of five in a row being on one side of mean is 1/2e5 or 0.03125:1

Where the hell did you get that factoid? You evidently didn't read or understand the constrainsts for that evaluation.. Hint --- it's NOT an independent random draw.

That's the point. Extents are consistently shrinking. The recent excited claim that extents were up 60%, side by side pictures and all the rest, are not supported by the data.

 

[Crick]

1932? That wouldn't be a little cherry-picked now would it? Global temperatures had risen 0.3C in the prior 20 years. Temperatures in the US were record setting. And how much of the ice boundary do they actually have data on? 30%? A handful of times a year, tops?

And what are you suggesting with such data? Do you perhaps see evidence that warm weather causes the ice extents to shrink?

Show us some convincing evidence that Arctic ice extents were at current levels or lower BEFORE 1910.

 

[mamooth]

Show us some convincing evidence that Arctic ice extents were at current levels or lower BEFORE 1910.

I think you've gotten a little confused, as I'm posting charts to show ice extent is higher in the past.

Charts go back to 1896, so here's June 1901. Compared to June 2014, ice extent is much bigger in 1901. Much more ice in the Greenland Sea and around Svalbard, and no melt at all off Siberia.

Crap ... image doesn't seem to work with ftp site. Just hit the link.

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02203/1901_06.jpg

 

[Kosh]

Have you noticed this?

That you are an AGW cult member and hate anything dealing with real science?

Yes many here have noticed that.

 

[Crick]

Show us some convincing evidence that Arctic ice extents were at current levels or lower BEFORE 1910.

I think you've gotten a little confused, as I'm posting charts to show ice extent is higher in the past.

Charts go back to 1896, so here's June 1901. Compared to June 2014, ice extent is much bigger in 1901. Much more ice in the Greenland Sea and around Svalbard, and no melt at all off Siberia.

Crap ... image doesn't seem to work with ftp site. Just hit the link.

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02203/1901_06.jpg

If that was to me, then, yes, I had gotten confused. I had not seen your charts. Much obliged.

Oh, and Kosh - long time no see. Just wish it were longer.

 

[skookerasbil]

Still nobody is caring............

But sure as hell does seem that most peeps who wander into this forum and are not committed AGW fascist climate crusaders are seeking some truth >>>


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


This kind of thread, about arctic ice, has been posted up about 65,000 times in this forum and goes away in a few days. Maybe a week.


But not the thread above.........everybody who wanders in here wants to check it out and find out the real poop!! Who knew? Who knew the Skeptics side would dominate an ENVIRONMENT forum??

 

[Crick]

And no one but AGW deniers has posted in your thread in weeks. It is nothing but an echo chamber. I personally think management ought to delete it. There's no "discussion" taking place there.

 

[skookerasbil]

And no one but AGW deniers has posted in your thread in weeks. It is nothing but an echo chamber. I personally think management ought to delete it. There's no "discussion" taking place there.

Ahhh.....but the "views" s0n......its all about the views!!! Of over 100+ links that decimate the AGW fantasy that their stuff matters. Its all there in facts......black and white. Skeptics leave all conjecture at the front door and leave the echo chambers to the k00ks.

Good luck with your thread here Bub!!!

 

[mamooth]

To Skook, viewing his own thread a hundred times a day to bump up the views represents a great victory. On the plus side, it keeps him off the streets and away from normal people.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you noticed that your baseline covers a pitifully small period of time...have you also noticed that historical documents from people who have sailed those waters, and historical news makes it clear that in the early 20th century, there was considerably less ice than now?

The actual historical records from the Danish over that period show much more ice than we have now. For example, this chart of August 1932 shows an ice extent very similar to June 2014, two months earlier in the melt season. The Danish charts are by far the best historical data available, and they flat out contradict you, hence you'll find a reason to handwave it all away in favor of a newspaper clipping.

Arctic Sea Ice Charts from Danish Meteorological Institute, 1893 - 1956

Note: It says "Presumed ice edge." That's another way of saying they don't really know where the iced edge was.

 

[PredFan]

Look what a large portion of the extent readings are below the baseline average.

With the exception of about ten days in 2012, the extents values during these five months, haven't gone above the baseline average in five years.

Warming cultists cherry picking data.

Move along folks, nothing new to see here.

 

[Crick]

How about you explain how that data could be considered "cherry picked"