Polar Ice

[Chris]

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Ahhh "Climate Change" season... I haven't gone through the thread, but out of curiosity... how many posts do we have from those desperate to point out the recent spikes in the ICE melt in Antartica>? Which are a result of the recent spike in the average daily temperatures in Antartica... which are due to it being SUMMER in Antartica?

ROFL...
















Leftists...

OH! Isn't it odd that with all that melting ice... that sea-levels haven't increased a scintilla?

Not a Giga-inch...

It's not odd at all.

Ice in water melting does not cause the ocean to rise much.

Ice on the land melting does.

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are the big enchilatas...

 

[Old Rocks]

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Ahhh "Climate Change" season... I haven't gone through the thread, but out of curiosity... how many posts do we have from those desperate to point out the recent spikes in the ICE melt in Antartica>? Which are a result of the recent spike in the average daily temperatures in Antartica... which are due to it being SUMMER in Antartica?

ROFL...
















Leftists...

OH! Isn't it odd that with all that melting ice... that sea-levels haven't increased a scintilla?

Not a Giga-inch...

Oh my, PI is back. As stupid as usual.

The annual increase in sea level is tracking at the very top side of the probability cone in the predictions of the IPCC.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/climatechange/09709technotesealevelrise.pdf

Observations of sea level rise
An analysis of tide gauge records from around the world has found that during the twentieth
century (1870–2001), global sea level rose by 19.5 cm at a rate of 1.7±0.3 mm per year, with
the rate of sea level rise accelerating towards the end of the twentieth century (Church &
White 2006). This information is summarised in Figure 3, which includes global average tide
gauge data between 1870 and 2001 and global average satellite altimeter data from 1993 to
2006. A recent analysis of satellite data (1993–2007) shows the current global average
annual sea level rise to be 3.4 ± 0.4 mm per year (Beckley et al. 2007).

Now at this rate of rise, and increase in rise, that puts us in for a meter to two meters of rise by 2100.

Now PI, instead of yap-yap, why don't you show me some articles from real science that support your assertation that there has been no sea level rise?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think it's more like thinking that if we don't burn this witch, it probably won't do any harm.

You have to prove that the problem is CO2 before changing the whole world makes any sense. Going on a witch hunt to destroy any who think they drive a car is not particularly stupid so much as it is crazy.

Prove your case before you recomend the solution. Right now, you have not proven your case.

You say that I claim that scientists have not predicted "the rapidity with which our actions are causing the Earth to change." That is untrue. What I claim is that in the instance of CO2 driving climate change, scientists have yet to prove that our actions are causing the Earth to change at all.

They, too, have yet to prove their case.

They have proven the case. And I have repeatedly posted that proof. Proof from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you can come up with real physicists that claim otherwise, do so. Note that I will check out their other work, and fruitcakes such as Lycklama, will do your arguement more harm than good.

And there is direct observational evidence;



Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Gee if we are at the tipping point, the outgassing of methane (CH4) from Siberia probably means were past the point of no return huh? Yet ice caps continue a net growth pattern. Record cold in many places on the globe. Most predictions of the climatologists are not coming true and Al Gore continues to mislead us on the issue.
P.S. Your source said nothing about man as the source of this problem. Also, CFC-11 (Freon-11) was outlawed in the US in 1995 and concentrations are falling globally:
File:AYool CFC-11 history.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CFC-12 (Freon-12) was banned in the US in 1994 and cncentrations are stopped growing:
File:AYool CFC-12 history.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any more science bulldroppings you want to fling today?

Yet ice caps continue a net growth pattern. Record cold in many places on the globe. Most predictions of the climatologists are not coming true and Al Gore continues to mislead us on the issue.


No, the ice caps do not show a net growth pattern. The North Polar Cap has lost volume every year since 2005. Nearly a 40% loss there. Both the Greenland and Antartic Ice Caps are losing ice by the giga-ton. The only area gaining ice is the Antarctic Sea Ice, and the gain there is a fraction of a percent of what the North Polar Sea Ice has lost. In fact, when you look at the graph of the total global sea ice, you can see the pattern of dramatic loss;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Record cold in many places on the globe, record warmth in many more places.

Breaking: 2009 hottest year on record in Southern Hemisphere and tied for second globally Climate Progress
Eli Kintisch at Science Magazine just published, “2009 Hottest Year on Record in Southern Hemisphere.” He quoted NASA mathematician Reto Ruedy of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies on the as-yet-not-released December and yearly data. We’ve all been waiting for NASA’s final report on the year — to see whether 2009 will be the second hottest year on record (see Must-see NASA figures compare 2009 to the two hottest years on record: 2005 and 2007) and whether NASA would make an official prediction that 2010 is likely to be the hottest on record, as the UK’s Met Office has and as Hansen himself did (here).

You are correct, most of the predictions of the climatologists are not coming true, they are being exceeded by a considerable amount.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

Now perhaps you would care to present a rebuttal to what I have posted, with links to scientific papers supporting your points.

 

[saveliberty]

I have posted sources refuting you frequently. You always get proven wrong. The Antarctia ice caps represent 90% of the world's ice caps. 80% of that mass is growing. That means 72% of the world's ice caps are growing. Gore's lies and those of your trusted science sources are also well documented. You continue to throw out manipulated temperature data as gospel too. Most here have already defined you as a global warming faither.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Ahhh "Climate Change" season... I haven't gone through the thread, but out of curiosity... how many posts do we have from those desperate to point out the recent spikes in the ICE melt in Antartica>? Which are a result of the recent spike in the average daily temperatures in Antartica... which are due to it being SUMMER in Antartica?

ROFL...
















Leftists...

OH! Isn't it odd that with all that melting ice... that sea-levels haven't increased a scintilla?

Not a Giga-inch...

When ice cubes melt in your water does it OVERFLOW!!!??? IDIOT!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I have posted sources refuting you frequently. You always get proven wrong. The Antarctia ice caps represent 90% of the world's ice caps. 80% of that mass is growing. That means 72% of the world's ice caps are growing. Gore's lies and those of your trusted science sources are also well documented. You continue to throw out manipulated temperature data as gospel too. Most here have already defined you as a global warming faither.

RIGHT now you change your story and say MASS of the ice is increasing which it a TOTAL LIE! Square miles covered does NOT equal MASS of ice. What you have is MUCH thinner ice covering a large area NOT an increase in DEPTH of ice.


Do you UNDERSTAND the difference? Do you GET IT!!!???

 

[Nonelitist]

I have posted sources refuting you frequently. You always get proven wrong. The Antarctia ice caps represent 90% of the world's ice caps. 80% of that mass is growing. That means 72% of the world's ice caps are growing. Gore's lies and those of your trusted science sources are also well documented. You continue to throw out manipulated temperature data as gospel too. Most here have already defined you as a global warming faither.

RIGHT now you change your story and say MASS of the ice is increasing which it a TOTAL LIE! Square miles covered does NOT equal MASS of ice. What you have is MUCH thinner ice covering a large area NOT an increase in DEPTH of ice.


Do you UNDERSTAND the difference? Do you GET IT!!!???

Hey retard.. you admit that ice is expanding but claim that is is thinning.

Ok... can you please explain to us all how it is cold enough on the edges of the ice to freeze, thereby extending... but warm enough for the top of the ice to be melting?

Fricken idiot. You don't even think.

 

[saveliberty]

ALL ice has mass as long as it is in Earth's gravitation. Do you get that? Very unlikely that you would get a lateral expansion of ice while experiencing a reduction in its thickness. Speaking of stopping and thinking about something....

 

[Nonelitist]

Without doing the research myself... can someone tell me what the normal highest temperature is during the year for the area in question?

 

[skookerasbil]

POLAR FaIL.......................


California watchdog sees climate policy job losses
Today, 01:18 am

Buzz Up! Print StoryCalifornia is likely to see modest job losses in the near term from its aggressive climate change policy due to higher energy costs and other factors, the state's independent Legislative Analyst's Office said. Skip related content
The budget watchdog was responding to a request by Republican state Senator Dave Cogdill to study the effects of California's 2006 climate change law, which mandates changes to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

California's environmental vanguard approach is being hotly debated in the state ahead of a November gubernatorial race and in the midst of an economic downturn that has pushed unemployment to recent records. Many other states and the federal government are watching closely.

"We believe that the aggregate net jobs impact in the near term is likely to be negative," said the report, dated March 4. "Reasons for this include the various economic dislocations, behavioral adjustments, investment requirements, and certain other factors," it said.

The total effects on the economy near- and long-term are likely to be modest, since energy costs are a relatively small share of expenses for most people living and doing business in California, it said.

The state agency responsible for implementing the law is working on a revised economic analysis after a first draft met widespread criticism. That revision is expected this month. The Legislative Analyst's Office based its comments on the original version.






this is why this "global warming" stuff has become so politically radioactive. The only people who will talk about it anymore hail from uber left districts. Green jobs............lmao............an economic disaster!!!

 

[code1211]

Without doing the research myself... can someone tell me what the normal highest temperature is during the year for the area in question?

Inland in the Antarctic, it's mothr freakin' cold in the winter and only freakin' cold in the summer. When airplanes fly in to resupply Antartic stations, they keep the engines running.

On the northern coasts of the Arctic Sea like Barrow, mid-summer temps routinely go above 40F. Mid-summer is a pretty short season up there, though. Further north, it stays cooler, but the ice melts or grows because of wind and water currents.

Sorry, no links for this stuff. It's recollections of my failing memory, so I'd check it before I quoted it.

 

[code1211]

HUNDREDS OF GIGATONNES OF ARCTIC ICE GONE. Pointing to the increase of ice COVERAGE doesn't change the FACT that hundres of GIGATONNES of ice has melted.

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Thank you for your opinion.

Here is the opinion of people who have a chance of knowing the actual facts. They seem to think that the amount of ice presnt in the Arctic Sea is greater than in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In fact, they think the amount of ice is within the range of standard deviation of the average of ice extent from 1979 to 2000.

Those pesky experts exposing more data. God, how you must hate that!

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

 

[saveliberty]

I should probably inform all of you we are losing giga tons of ice and snow here in Michigan as well. I know, I know. It is a scientific fact none the less. In fairness it needed to be reported. OF COURSE IT WILL ALL COME BACK NEXT WINTER!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You really are an IDIOT.

 

[Chris]

How much has the ice recovered since its low point some years ago?

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Thank you for your opinion.

Here is the opinion of people who have a chance of knowing the actual facts. They seem to think that the amount of ice presnt in the Arctic Sea is greater than in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In fact, they think the amount of ice is within the range of standard deviation of the average of ice extent from 1979 to 2000.

Those pesky experts exposing more data. God, how you must hate that!

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

No, I love the NSIDC.

Because the ice has for two weeks returned to the lower portion of the standard deviation, does not mean the ice has recovered. We are still a long way from the twenty year average.

Nice try though.

I am the one who predicted that we were going to have a colder than normal winter because of the sun's lower activity. All these things have an effect...the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the sun's activity, etc...

To deny any of them is to deny the truth.

 

[code1211]

It hasn't recovered.

In spite of the fact that the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What happens when the sun's activity level comes back?

Thank you for your opinion.

Here is the opinion of people who have a chance of knowing the actual facts. They seem to think that the amount of ice presnt in the Arctic Sea is greater than in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In fact, they think the amount of ice is within the range of standard deviation of the average of ice extent from 1979 to 2000.

Those pesky experts exposing more data. God, how you must hate that!

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

No, I love the NSIDC.

Because the ice has for two weeks returned to the lower portion of the standard deviation, does not mean the ice has recovered. We are still a long way from the twenty year average.

Nice try though.

I am the one who predicted that we were going to have a colder than normal winter because of the sun's lower activity. All these things have an effect...the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the sun's activity, etc...

To deny any of them is to deny the truth.

And yet both January and February were among the warmest on record.

Do you ever get sick of being right?

By the way, being within the standard deviation means it's just like many of the other years during the 1979-2000 period. Also, I omitted that the ice extent is also greater than 2005. 5 straight years of increase over the starting point. Now we're back into the standard deviation. Some might call it a trend.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love checking into this forum once in a blue moon and seeing that the fcukking k00k greens are still posting up statistics, glacier photos............Yup.........ahhhhhhhh >takes long draw off ciggy in classic Denis Leary style!!<


How relevant is this in 2010??


Politically? About as relevant as a group exercise in navel contemplation.



Thats the only thing that matters at this point s0ns!!!!!!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Even IF the ice covers the same area it is NOT as DEEP as it was. We have NEVER come closer to having a northern sea lane than we did last year.......That is UNPRECEDENTED! If you want to be HONEST about sea ice extent then you MUST address the depth and age of the ice, just because a lake has ice on it doesn't mean you are going to ice fish there until you are SURE the THICKNESS of ice is suficient to hold your weight, RIGHT?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, when 97% of the people that are in your field agree with you, it usually means that your presentation has been pretty convincing.

A sad statement is that with the three degrees that you claim, you cannot discern what is real science and what is fraud. You have even posted referances to OISM.

97% agreement is not science.

When the RCC controlled everything, 99% of scientists agreed that the Earth was a flat plane at the center of the Universe because they too only allowed true believers to speak, much like how East Angelia School of Data Manipulation suppressed non-believers and heretics and dispensed their manipulated data like Communion wafers.

Can you show me one single double blind experiment where scientists measured the effects of a 200ppm CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Just one experiment. How hard can that be?

Finding places where its warmer (or colder) and announcing: "See that!? Didja see that? Global Warming!" is NOT science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Even IF the ice covers the same area it is NOT as DEEP as it was. We have NEVER come closer to having a northern sea lane than we did last year.......That is UNPRECEDENTED! If you want to be HONEST about sea ice extent then you MUST address the depth and age of the ice, just because a lake has ice on it doesn't mean you are going to ice fish there until you are SURE the THICKNESS of ice is suficient to hold your weight, RIGHT?

It's not "unprecedented!!!!!!!!!!!!!"