Polar ice caps same size as 1979

[Billy_Bob]

What is funny to me is the first images were hand read, by grid square, and given a percentage number of ice coverage. When this same method is done today there is statistically no change in ice coverage from 1979.

Only when we allow the computer and algorithms to take over do we get and ever dwindling amount of ice. A simple change in the algorithms parameters and whala it all comes back. When redundant averaging is allowed to run in perpetuity all programs using it will end in zero. As far as I can ascertain, this has never been addressed in the global averaging program for sea ice...

 

[toobfreak]

No death spiral?

Only by people of your ilk and party! Shall I draw you a fantasy chart showing the exact opposite results??? The chart above comes from this source HERE:

Haveland-Robinson Associates - Home Page

In it, the author states: "Some years ago I got interested in what was happening in the Arctic so I used my graphics and programming skills to create some vizualizations(sic)"

Its author is a web designer, artist and musician. THIS is your great proof of the world coming to an end? Another liberal lie bombs out.

 

[toobfreak]

For 400 years, they have been searching for the Northwest Passage. Only in this century has the ice declined to the point that on some years since 2000, the Northwest Passage is open for unarmored ships like this one, that went through the passage last year.

Oh GOOD then! Progress! Think of all of the environmentally harmful pollution saved by being able to go straight over the Pole now rather than all the way around to get somewhere. Another first for saving our environment through progressive climate modification.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What is funny to me is the first images were hand read, by grid square, and given a percentage number of ice coverage. When this same method is done today there is statistically no change in ice coverage from 1979.

Only when we allow the computer and algorithms to take over do we get and ever dwindling amount of ice. A simple change in the algorithms parameters and whala it all comes back. When redundant averaging is allowed to run in perpetuity all programs using it will end in zero. As far as I can ascertain, this has never been addressed in the global averaging program for sea ice...

I've always said that. Manmade software written by people with an agenda.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sonuvagun, Weren't we told the ice caps would be totally gone by now? From what I can tell, reality has once again not cooperated with the alarmist predictions. The ice advances and recedes, just like always. I wouldn't say that AGW doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to be the imminent catastrophe that it's painted as being.


Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede. ...

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as "proof" of a global warming crisis.) ...

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

But area isn't so important as the THICKNESS of this ice. One thing they've noticed is that when the ice melts more, it also spreads more.... This doesn't mean temperatures aren't rising, it doesn't mean that the ice isn't melting more, it's like someone in a shitty skoda from 1987 going up to someone in a Ferrari and saying "my car's better than yours because it's redder than yours"

 

[task0778]

Sonuvagun, Weren't we told the ice caps would be totally gone by now? From what I can tell, reality has once again not cooperated with the alarmist predictions. The ice advances and recedes, just like always. I wouldn't say that AGW doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to be the imminent catastrophe that it's painted as being.


Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede. ...

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as "proof" of a global warming crisis.) ...

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

But area isn't so important as the THICKNESS of this ice. One thing they've noticed is that when the ice melts more, it also spreads more.... This doesn't mean temperatures aren't rising, it doesn't mean that the ice isn't melting more, it's like someone in a shitty skoda from 1987 going up to someone in a Ferrari and saying "my car's better than yours because it's redder than yours"

Post #3 (which I posted) says " And then there's this, the Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick (April 2017). Guess what it was in 1940. Uh-huh, 2 meters thick."

So, the arctic ice is just as thick as it was some 75 years ago.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sonuvagun, Weren't we told the ice caps would be totally gone by now? From what I can tell, reality has once again not cooperated with the alarmist predictions. The ice advances and recedes, just like always. I wouldn't say that AGW doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to be the imminent catastrophe that it's painted as being.


Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede. ...

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as "proof" of a global warming crisis.) ...

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

But area isn't so important as the THICKNESS of this ice. One thing they've noticed is that when the ice melts more, it also spreads more.... This doesn't mean temperatures aren't rising, it doesn't mean that the ice isn't melting more, it's like someone in a shitty skoda from 1987 going up to someone in a Ferrari and saying "my car's better than yours because it's redder than yours"

Post #3 (which I posted) says " And then there's this, the Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick (April 2017). Guess what it was in 1940. Uh-huh, 2 meters thick."

So, the arctic ice is just as thick as it was some 75 years ago.

Uh huh? Same day, same conditions? What about an average of the year? Or are we just doing bad science here that fits what you want it to fit?

 

[SSDD]

Uh huh? Same day, same conditions? What about an average of the year? Or are we just doing bad science here that fits what you want it to fit?

A day....a year...25 years....all are bad science...If you want good science, then you have to look at the large picture...you have to look at history, and see where we stand in the big, long term picture.

Take a look at these gold standard temperature reconstructions and tell me how you think the present state of the polar ice compares to its state for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[mamooth]

We took our polar satellite passes and their output of photos and compared them to the 1979 sets of ice coverage and found them to be within +/- 0.1%.

Who's "we", little crying kook?

The voices in your head don't count as science. You're just making stupid stories up. It's what you do. It's all you do

 

[mamooth]

Post #3 (which I posted) says " And then there's this, the Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick (April 2017). Guess what it was in 1940. Uh-huh, 2 meters thick."

That was you making some nonsense up. We were doing you a favor by ignoring your crazy claims.

However, if you'd like to push your big fail front and center, we'd be happy to humiliate you further. Do show us where "Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick", and then compare it to what they said in 1940. Given that Denmark didn't make any sea ice measurements in 1940, due to the whole "occupied by Nazis" thing, your claim is especially interesting.

Best guess is you did something hilariously stupid. You noted that there's a spot with 2m thick ice now, and assumed there was a spot with 2m ice in 1940, so you declared it's the same thing.

Meanwhile, people posted the actual total volume measurements which show your claims are nonsense. You pretend they don't exist. Denied them, that is, which is why you're called a denier cultist.

 

[skookerasbil]

Post #3 (which I posted) says " And then there's this, the Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick (April 2017). Guess what it was in 1940. Uh-huh, 2 meters thick."

That was you making some nonsense up. We were doing you a favor by ignoring your crazy claims.

However, if you'd like to push your big fail front and center, we'd be happy to humiliate you further. Do show us where "Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice is about two meters thick", and then compare it to what they said in 1940. Given that Denmark didn't make any sea ice measurements in 1940, due to the whole "occupied by Nazis" thing, your claim is especially interesting.

Best guess is you did something hilariously stupid. You noted that there's a spot with 2m thick ice now, and assumed there was a spot with 2m ice in 1940, so you declared it's the same thing.

Meanwhile, people posted the actual total volume measurements which show your claims are nonsense. You pretend they don't exist. Denied them, that is, which is why you're called a denier cultist.

On the intanets s0n...........opinions are like assholes. Do you ever post up a link? Once a month? And you are calling everybody else a k00k? Cultists have faggy cultist -looking cats on their avatar btw. Everybody who comes in here thinks you make your shit up.........my skeptic pals and myself always back our shit up with links. Which means you don't provide dick. Nobody cares about the Arctic sea ice.......in two hours, Trump pulls out of the Paris Treaty. If people cared about the ice, this would not be happening. When k00ks like you say for 20+ years that the ice is disappearing and it gets bigger, people stop caring............******* duh. That's how it works in the real world s0n

 

[jc456]

It has been posted here before but it depends on how its measured.

No, its not the same. Not even close.

well show us the photos.

 

[Wyatt earp]

IPCC graph showing that '79 was high

1975 is higher, so your own graph disproves your claim.

It's also a cherrypciking fallacy in multiple ways. You refuse to look back further, when extents were higher. And you refuse to look at better data, even when it's presented to you.

Other data from other sources show ice levels going higher and lower during last century.

No, sources show extent being quite steady for over a thousand years, then starting a steady declining from about 1970. There is no cycle visible, just a decline.

Interesting who am I going to believe you or someone who bust your AGW Cult down in front of Congress?






.

 

[skookerasbil]

Judith Curry is the shit!! Love hearing her speak........makes the alarmist k00ks look so insignificant in such forums. The senator looks like a jackass.She is talking about fact after fact after fact while he keeps talking about one month out of hundreds of years!!


edit>> and not for nothing, Mark Styne is hysterical......he is playing 4D chess while the senator is playing checkers <<edit

 

[Wyatt earp]

Judith Curry is the shit!! Love hearing her speak........makes the alarmist k00ks look so insignificant in such forums. The senator looks like a jackass.


edit>> and not for nothing, Mark Styne is hysterical......he is playing 4D chess while the senator is playing checkers <<edit

I know Mark can smoke them.. They are like a tag team.
.

 

[mamooth]

Interesting who am I going to believe you or someone who bust your AGW Cult down in front of Congress?

Run, denier cultists, run!

Just what does paid shill Curry lying to Congress have to do with the topic? Nothing. She's just a deflection you tossed out to deflect from losing.

We will always spank you denier losers, and you will always cry and run. We know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It's the way the universe works. We point to facts, you flap your little limp wrists around wildly and have snowflake meltdowns.

Now, should you squealers ever want to actually discuss science, we'll be willing, as we always are. After all, we live to educate those who lacked the fortune to be endowed with much in the way of brainpower, or much in any department. The topic is Arctic Sea ice. Care to address it?

Maybe you could find the Danish sea ice measurements from 1940, or explain how a lead means the whole ice pack has melted. Or do a Billy Bob, and create an entire fictional mystery science organization. Or declare yourself an image expert, albeit one who still pushes the dumbest scam in history. Your side is just racking up the stupid on this thread.

And going back to the OP ... this.

Analysis of "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat"
---
Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was 'very low'. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading.
---


James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual
---
As you can clearly see, Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 whereas Antarctic sea ice has increased. Taylor's little trick of adding Arctic and Antarctic hides the decline in the Arctic. If you're curious as to why Antarctic sea ice has increased, part of the answer is meltwater from the 159 billion metric tons per year of land ice lost from the Antarctic continent is making the surface of the ocean less salty (Bintanja et al. 2013, McMillan et al. 2014). That meltwater is also leading to thermal stratification of the ocean around Antarctica, which insulates any sea ice from warm currents below the ice (Zhang 2007). A third piece of the puzzle appears to be stronger circumpolar winds which have opened up more gaps in the floating sea ice (i.e. Turner et al. 2009). But you won't hear any of that from Taylor. All he cares about are those facts he can spin to make his argument.
---

 

[Wyatt earp]

Interesting who am I going to believe you or someone who bust your AGW Cult down in front of Congress?

Run, denier cultists, run!

Just what does paid shill Curry lying to Congress have to do with the topic? Nothing. She's just a deflection you tossed out to deflect from losing.

We will always spank you denier losers, and you will always cry and run. We know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It's the way the universe works. We point to facts, you flap your little limp wrists around wildly and have snowflake meltdowns.

Now, should you squealers ever want to actually discuss science, we'll be willing, as we always are. After all, we live to educate those who lacked the fortune to be endowed with much in the way of brainpower, or much in any department. The topic is Arctic Sea ice. Care to address it?

Maybe you could find the Danish sea ice measurements from 1940, or explain how a lead means the whole ice pack has melted. Or do a Billy Bob, and create an entire fictional mystery science organization. Or declare yourself an image expert, albeit one who still pushes the dumbest scam in history. Your side is just racking up the stupid on this thread.

And going back to the OP ... this.

Analysis of "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat"
---
Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was 'very low'. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading.
---


James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual
---
As you can clearly see, Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 whereas Antarctic sea ice has increased. Taylor's little trick of adding Arctic and Antarctic hides the decline in the Arctic. If you're curious as to why Antarctic sea ice has increased, part of the answer is meltwater from the 159 billion metric tons per year of land ice lost from the Antarctic continent is making the surface of the ocean less salty (Bintanja et al. 2013, McMillan et al. 2014). That meltwater is also leading to thermal stratification of the ocean around Antarctica, which insulates any sea ice from warm currents below the ice (Zhang 2007). A third piece of the puzzle appears to be stronger circumpolar winds which have opened up more gaps in the floating sea ice (i.e. Turner et al. 2009). But you won't hear any of that from Taylor. All he cares about are those facts he can spin to make his argument.
---

Once again who are you?

Just a idiot posting graphs and links that you cherry pick to look like a moron..



I am more interested in Congress hearings that Judith slams your Cult on..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Interesting who am I going to believe you or someone who bust your AGW Cult down in front of Congress?

Run, denier cultists, run!

Just what does paid shill Curry lying to Congress have to do with the topic? Nothing. She's just a deflection you tossed out to deflect from losing.

We will always spank you denier losers, and you will always cry and run. We know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It's the way the universe works. We point to facts, you flap your little limp wrists around wildly and have snowflake meltdowns.

Now, should you squealers ever want to actually discuss science, we'll be willing, as we always are. After all, we live to educate those who lacked the fortune to be endowed with much in the way of brainpower, or much in any department. The topic is Arctic Sea ice. Care to address it?

Maybe you could find the Danish sea ice measurements from 1940, or explain how a lead means the whole ice pack has melted. Or do a Billy Bob, and create an entire fictional mystery science organization. Or declare yourself an image expert, albeit one who still pushes the dumbest scam in history. Your side is just racking up the stupid on this thread.

And going back to the OP ... this.

Analysis of "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat"
---
Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was 'very low'. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading.
---


James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual
---
As you can clearly see, Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 whereas Antarctic sea ice has increased. Taylor's little trick of adding Arctic and Antarctic hides the decline in the Arctic. If you're curious as to why Antarctic sea ice has increased, part of the answer is meltwater from the 159 billion metric tons per year of land ice lost from the Antarctic continent is making the surface of the ocean less salty (Bintanja et al. 2013, McMillan et al. 2014). That meltwater is also leading to thermal stratification of the ocean around Antarctica, which insulates any sea ice from warm currents below the ice (Zhang 2007). A third piece of the puzzle appears to be stronger circumpolar winds which have opened up more gaps in the floating sea ice (i.e. Turner et al. 2009). But you won't hear any of that from Taylor. All he cares about are those facts he can spin to make his argument.
---

Once again who are you?

Just a idiot posting graphs and links that you cherry pick to look like a moron..



I am more interested in Congress hearings that Judith slams your Cult on..

Hey if you're invited to go to go to Congress I will watch in amusement.. While Judith makes you pee in your pants like Michael Mann did.


.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting who am I going to believe you or someone who bust your AGW Cult down in front of Congress?

Run, denier cultists, run!

Just what does paid shill Curry lying to Congress have to do with the topic? Nothing. She's just a deflection you tossed out to deflect from losing.

We will always spank you denier losers, and you will always cry and run. We know it, you know it, everyone knows it. It's the way the universe works. We point to facts, you flap your little limp wrists around wildly and have snowflake meltdowns.

Now, should you squealers ever want to actually discuss science, we'll be willing, as we always are. After all, we live to educate those who lacked the fortune to be endowed with much in the way of brainpower, or much in any department. The topic is Arctic Sea ice. Care to address it?

Maybe you could find the Danish sea ice measurements from 1940, or explain how a lead means the whole ice pack has melted. Or do a Billy Bob, and create an entire fictional mystery science organization. Or declare yourself an image expert, albeit one who still pushes the dumbest scam in history. Your side is just racking up the stupid on this thread.

And going back to the OP ... this.

Analysis of "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat"
---
Eight scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was 'very low'. A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading.
---


James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual
---
As you can clearly see, Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 whereas Antarctic sea ice has increased. Taylor's little trick of adding Arctic and Antarctic hides the decline in the Arctic. If you're curious as to why Antarctic sea ice has increased, part of the answer is meltwater from the 159 billion metric tons per year of land ice lost from the Antarctic continent is making the surface of the ocean less salty (Bintanja et al. 2013, McMillan et al. 2014). That meltwater is also leading to thermal stratification of the ocean around Antarctica, which insulates any sea ice from warm currents below the ice (Zhang 2007). A third piece of the puzzle appears to be stronger circumpolar winds which have opened up more gaps in the floating sea ice (i.e. Turner et al. 2009). But you won't hear any of that from Taylor. All he cares about are those facts he can spin to make his argument.
---

Once again who are you?

Just a idiot posting graphs and links that you cherry pick to look like a moron..



I am more interested in Congress hearings that Judith slams your Cult on..

Hey if you're invited to go to go to Congress I will watch in amusement.. While Judith makes you pee in your pants like Michael Mann did.


.

To be fair...michael man did see the handwriting on the wall and put on a pair of depends before the hearing...that way he didn't have to make the walk of shame out of congress with a big old pee stain down the front of his trousers.