Holy crap!! Arctic ocean almost totally ice covered!!

[flacaltenn]

Compared to the average extent (1979-2000), the sea ice had diminished by 49%.

Statements like that are blatant misrepresentations because it not rigidly specified. You could see that from the graph you posted. It uses the 11.9% SUMMER extent decadal decline rate to get the 49% since 1979. But the WINTER extent is less than a 1/5 of that. That's why you NORMALIZE year over year to get something like NSIDC plots.

At LEAST qualify the statement with "summer extent" and then we can chat about how ICE is worst proxy for reading temperature and temperatures effects on the planet.

That was a quote from Polar Portal, which is a site of these people;






© 2018 - DMI, DTU, GEUS.

Funding for creating and running this website is provided with support from Dancea (Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic) under the Danish Ministry for Energy, Utilities and Climate.
DMI, GEUS and DTU are responsible for the content of the site.

That's fine. Everyone makes honest mistakes if it's not an actual published paper. But too often, it seems to be done to grossly exaggerate. Yes, the Arctic sea ice is in decline. Does not mean the end of the world is at hand. Just means it crossed a threshhold some long time back where fall and spring days can bring short periods of stunted growth or melt. And those periods will result in bad years for sea ice. Even IF it's as short as a couple days above 0DegC.

1979 was relative HIGH for sea ice. And that is part of the problem here. Don't even have quite 40 years yet of reliable accounting.

Of course, barring magic spells or voodoo chants, the ocean and land ice will continue to recede, as the planet warms.

That's true. Been true for the last 10,000 years or so. But seriously -- you'd rather have a climate where the Arctic sea ice and mountains glaciers are GROWING? Think before you choose.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Been true for the last 10,000 years or so.

Of course, that sounds pretty silly and irrelevant, given that the high rate of the current, human-caused warming trend is the crux of the problem.

 

[flacaltenn]

And, as the ice recedes, Earth's albedo will decrease and greenhouse gases will be released from the soil, both factors which will contribute to warming.

Not necessarily.. It would be seasonal in the Arctic. Not gonna happen in Southern Hemi. And the dirty secret is -- An ice free cold Arctic Ocean is possibly the most powerful CO2 sinks that could ever be contemplated. Even more efficient than forest cover. One of those NEGATIVE feedbacks that doesn't make the propaganda circles.

Largest CURRENT CO2 sink???? It's the Southern Ocean around the ICE FREE parts of the Antarctic continent. It ALONE sinks 40% of NATURAL CO2 emissions which are 20 TIMES the man-made contribution. That's what would occur in an "ice-free" Arctic Ocean seasonally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not necessarily..

Yes, necessarily. What I said is a demonstrable fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. Yes, less ice will mean less albedo. The oceans can only sink carbon at a measurable rate. Yes soil will release greenhouse gases. No, the new carbon sink you find under the sea ice (1% of the ocean surface ) will not keep up.

People have studied this, you know.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, as the ice recedes, Earth's albedo will decrease and greenhouse gases will be released from the soil, both factors which will contribute to warming.

Not necessarily.. It would be seasonal in the Arctic. Not gonna happen in Southern Hemi. And the dirty secret is -- An ice free cold Arctic Ocean is possibly the most powerful CO2 sinks that could ever be contemplated. Even more efficient than forest cover. One of those NEGATIVE feedbacks that doesn't make the propaganda circles.

Largest CURRENT CO2 sink???? It's the Southern Ocean around the ICE FREE parts of the Antarctic continent. It ALONE sinks 40% of NATURAL CO2 emissions which are 20 TIMES the man-made contribution. That's what would occur in an "ice-free" Arctic Ocean seasonally.

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say. Were that true, why was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere a near constant 280 ppm for thousands of years before present? And why was the variation only 180 ppm to 300 ppm over at least 800,000 years of this ice age? Only when we started burning fossil fuels did it spike to above 400 ppm. And when the Arctic Ice completely disappears, there will be a spike in both CO2 and CH4 because of permafrost thaw and ocean clathrates. I really did not think you were that ignorant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Been true for the last 10,000 years or so.

Of course, that sounds pretty silly and irrelevant, given that the high rate of the current, human-caused warming trend is the crux of the problem.

OK. I hurt your sensibilities. But you didn't answer the question. Would you rather have a climate where the Arctic Sea Ice and mountain glaciers are thriving? That's kind of the 2 choices given that a stable equilibrium on the planet doesn't last forever.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, the new carbon sink you find under the sea ice (1% of the ocean surface ) will not keep up.

People have studied this, you know.

....... and obviously you haven't. Not even the basic envelope calculation.. Not as a percentage of the OCEANS -- but as a percentage of the EARTH surface it's closer to 10%.. Almost shot your foot off there.

What percent of the Earth's surface does the Arctic Ocean cover

 

[flacaltenn]

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's kind of the 2 choices

No it isn't, that's absurd. There is a third choice, and that is a feedback loop that would throw all of your layman sensibilities about climate out the window.

Again, like the high rate of warming: this is the crux of the matter. This is what terrifies scientists. And you don't pay either as much as an ounce of lip service, which I think lays bare your motives. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge these things is a fraud, or is ignorant.

There are YOUR "two choices".

 

[bodecea]

Well s0ns....looks like those Russian climate scientists were right about cooling!! Yuk...yuk.....

Arctic Ocean almost totally ice-covered - Map - Ice Age Now

Snowing in Canada this week....court vacancy.....now this.. Dang.... if you're a liberal you're miserable as fuck.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Is that sea ice or ice cap ice? There IS a crucial difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's kind of the 2 choices

No it isn't, that's absurd. There is a third choice, and that is a feedback loop that would throw all of your layman sensibilities about climate out the window.

Again, like the high rate of warming: this is the crux of the matter. This is what terrifies scientists. And you don't pay either as much as an ounce of lip service, which I think lays bare your motives. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge these things is a fraud, or is ignorant.

There are YOUR "two choices".

There are no reliable ancient sources on "rates of change" of GLOBAL climate that have time resolutions better than about 400 years.. So there is no historical variance to compare our mere 100 year or so warming to. Scientists are not terrified. Because they KNOW that the "hockey sticks" measure no 100 year variance in temperature. But CERTAIN scientists have terrified you by MAKING the claim that current rate of rise is "unprecendented" by referring to the hockey sticks. That's a very unethical misrepresentation for political expediency.

Truth is -- YOU CAN SEE 100 year variance in SOME LOCAL historical proxies.I've posted the Greenland ice cores here MANY TIMES. And the LittelIceAge and Roman and Medieval warm periods are ALL there along with MANY spikes in temperature OUTSIDE of those events. And there are 100 year variances in there FASTER and just as large as the one we're been recording.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well s0ns....looks like those Russian climate scientists were right about cooling!! Yuk...yuk.....

Arctic Ocean almost totally ice-covered - Map - Ice Age Now

Snowing in Canada this week....court vacancy.....now this.. Dang.... if you're a liberal you're miserable as fuck.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Is that sea ice or ice cap ice? There IS a crucial difference.

It's Arctic Ocean. That is sea ice up there and that IS the "icecap".. Land ice not included.

 

[Old Rocks]

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

Flacaltenn, what the hell are you trying to prove here? You give the natural emissions, but fail to point out that the natural absorption of CO2 matches that emission. It is man's contribution that has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And we know how much coal, natural gas, and oil that we burn every year. So what exactly do you mean by phony accounting?

 

[flacaltenn]

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

Flacaltenn, what the hell are you trying to prove here? You give the natural emissions, but fail to point out that the natural absorption of CO2 matches that emission. It is man's contribution that has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And we know how much coal, natural gas, and oil that we burn every year. So what exactly do you mean by phony accounting?

The carbon sinks don't CHOOSE to sink just natural CO2. It doesn't know the difference. So the balance is a TOTAL balance. Being only 5% of the total emissions on the planet -- man's contributions could EASILY be overwhelmed in ANY year by changes in the NATURAL sourcing or sinking.

That said -- YOU want the simplistic picture that MAN with the puny 5% has RUINED the balance. But the cycle is not that well measured. As Temps rise the termites and plant life INCREASE their emissions. And the oceans give up MORE CO2 yearly as well. And their sinking ability might decrease.

In fact -- you WATCHED that yearly OSO (CO2 monitoring satellite) video and you could see SEASONAL changes by lattitudes.

Just don't be SHOCKED to find out NATURE dominates this cycle and start flaming me. You should KNOW this by now.

 

[skookerasbil]

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

Flacaltenn, what the hell are you trying to prove here? You give the natural emissions, but fail to point out that the natural absorption of CO2 matches that emission. It is man's contribution that has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And we know how much coal, natural gas, and oil that we burn every year. So what exactly do you mean by phony accounting?

The only question that is material is where is the proof that CO2 contributes to climate change? Where is it? Saying climate scientists have determined it is not proof.... it's loose association bullshit tied to special interests both in the field of science and the climate change industry. So where is the proof? Links please and no loose association crap recognized only by the number of people who could barely fill a lecture hall. Scientific societies dont count....that's a club made up of fakers who all benefit from getting on the established narrative train. So that's out!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, thus far, I have seen no evidence of nature reversing the anthropogenic contributions of GHGs. In fact, we are seeing just the opposite as the CH4 emissions in the Arctic are increasing.

 

[Old Rocks]

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

Flacaltenn, what the hell are you trying to prove here? You give the natural emissions, but fail to point out that the natural absorption of CO2 matches that emission. It is man's contribution that has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And we know how much coal, natural gas, and oil that we burn every year. So what exactly do you mean by phony accounting?

The only question that is material is where is the proof that CO2 contributes to climate change? Where is it? Saying climate scientists have determined it is not proof.... it's loose association bullshit tied to special interests both in the field of science and the climate change industry. So where is the proof? Links please and no loose association crap recognized only by the number of people who could barely fill a lecture hall. Scientific societies dont count....that's a club made up of fakers who all benefit from getting on the established narrative train. So that's out!!!!

What fucking bullshit. Natural CO2 emissions 20 times that of fossil fuel emissions? What a fucking idiotic thing to say.

It's ABSOLUTELY true. Basic metric of the annual CO2 cycle. The oceans are release about 350Gton and the land releases about 350Gton. Man's contribution yearly is about 35Gton/year. Look it up. Nature coughs up 20 times what man does EVERY YEAR. And that's even with all the phony accounting on man's contributions.

Flacaltenn, what the hell are you trying to prove here? You give the natural emissions, but fail to point out that the natural absorption of CO2 matches that emission. It is man's contribution that has raised the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. And we know how much coal, natural gas, and oil that we burn every year. So what exactly do you mean by phony accounting?

The only question that is material is where is the proof that CO2 contributes to climate change? Where is it? Saying climate scientists have determined it is not proof.... it's loose association bullshit tied to special interests both in the field of science and the climate change industry. So where is the proof? Links please and no loose association crap recognized only by the number of people who could barely fill a lecture hall. Scientific societies dont count....that's a club made up of fakers who all benefit from getting on the established narrative train. So that's out!!!!

Absorption spectrum of the GHGs. If you don't understand that you are not worth wasting time on. Those willfully ignorant will remain that way no matter what evidence is presented to them. Yes, scientific societies count. And, no, you don't get to decide what counts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, thus far, I have seen no evidence of nature reversing the anthropogenic contributions of GHGs. In fact, we are seeing just the opposite as the CH4 emissions in the Arctic are increasing.

Well those are NATURAL emissions caused by warming temperatures. But if CO2 IS the only climate knob we need to fixate on --- you have to ask yourself with 1/2 the world in mile thick ice and the thaw from EACH of the 4 Ice ages melting the VAST MAJORITY of the permafrost at the time -- why didn't ALL the permafrost melt and have the system "just runaway" and kill all life on the planet?

Why do we even HAVE permafrost left to thaw? The amount is trivial compared to what the Holocene has already thawed.

 

[Old Rocks]

And where have I said that CO2 is the only factor? And the amount of permafrost is not trivial if it melts rapidly. CO2 and CH4 are the two gases that mankind has had the most influence on. Well, not quite, for by adding over 40% more CO2, and 250% more CH4, we have put more than 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere. Houston.

 

[bodecea]

Well s0ns....looks like those Russian climate scientists were right about cooling!! Yuk...yuk.....

Arctic Ocean almost totally ice-covered - Map - Ice Age Now

Snowing in Canada this week....court vacancy.....now this.. Dang.... if you're a liberal you're miserable as fuck.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Is that sea ice or ice cap ice? There IS a crucial difference.

It's Arctic Ocean. That is sea ice up there and that IS the "icecap".. Land ice not included.

So you don't know the difference.....might want to look it up then.