Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!

[mamooth]

even though the Satellite Position can only be estimated within 50 cm with the new CryoSat2....

Until the ground processing, when it becomes sub-centimeter. Just like every other satellite before it. This kind of satellite tracking is not anything new.

That`s exactly how Hansen screwed up...till an "ignorant denier" pointed that "little problem" out...

I have no idea why Hansen got dragged into this. They seem to think he's dictator of NASA or something.

Strangely, they also seem to think those scientists are a bunch of eggheads without common sense. Rest assured, all the scientists have always understood the importance of knowing the orbit down to the centimeter, from the instant they started designing the systems.

 

[ScienceRocks]

JAXA 8/21 4,481,719 -113k

NSIDC extent 4,334,890 -113k km^2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?

Ice melts in summer...color me shocked!

 

[ScienceRocks]

...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?

Ice melts in summer...color me shocked!

Could be for a muitipable of reasons from the AMO to some other long time scale pattern or it could be Co2. Ice doesn't normally melt that much as seen on the charts of 1978-1990 compared to today.

A climate shift has happened no matter what you believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and this is because CO2 has increased from 385PPM in 2007 to 390 today?

Ice melts in summer...color me shocked!

Could be for a muitipable of reasons from the AMO to some other long time scale pattern or it could be Co2. Ice doesn't normally melt that much as seen on the charts of 1978-1990 compared to today.

A climate shift has happened no matter what you believe.

Yeah, I know

 

[mamooth]

Frank's retarded logic here is "Well, there were natural climate cycles in the past, so it must be natural now!". If we apply CrusaderFrank's retardo-logic in a similar fashion elsewhere, we can say:

Species went extinct naturally in the past, therefore all extinctions must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause extinctions! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Forest fires occurred naturally in the past, therefor all forest fires must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause forest fires! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Conclusion: Frank's retarded logic is, indeed, totally retarded.

Natural cycles have causes. We know what the causes were in the past that initiated climate shifts. None of them are at play now. That's why the non-retarded people know it's not a natural cycle now. It's solely the brainwashed political cultists who try to deflect from the issue with this frantic handwaving about "natural cycles."

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[ScienceRocks]

A slaughter!

 

[mamooth]

This is a interesting site, showing the maps of both extent and thickness for each day.

https://sites.google.com/site/apoca...ea-ice-concentration-and-thickness-comparison

The ice thickness map is the shocker. The thick ice is just gone. Everywhere. Even on the Greenland coast, the 6m+ ice is gone. An icebreaker could bust up to the north pole right now, something that's never happened before.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Before 2007 the 2005 sea ice sea held the record!

This is August 23rd 2005

Heres the same day in 2007

Heres 8-23-2012

 

[ScienceRocks]

2012 8 10 5.24234 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120810_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 11 5.09222 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120811_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 12 5.00511 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120812_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 13 4.89798 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120813_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 14 4.81884 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120814_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 15 4.80838 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120815_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 16 4.67673 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120816_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 17 4.63991 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120817_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 18 4.55608 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120818_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 19 4.44738 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120819_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 20 4.33489 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120820_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 21 4.33137 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120821_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 22 4.29062 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120822_f17_nrt_n.bin
2012 8 23 4.19043 0 ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0081_nrt_nasateam_seaice/north/nt_20120823_f17_nrt_n.bin

 

[ScienceRocks]

2012 holds the OFFICAL RECORD!!! WAHOOO!!!


But we have the numbers this time, because NSIDC decided - kudos to them - to release their daily numbers (hat-tip to Larry Hamilton):


2005 | 5.31832
2006 | 5.74877
2007 | 4.1607
2008 | 4.55469
2009 | 5.05488
2010 | 4.59918
2011 | 4.30207
2012 | 4.0892 (and running)


WAHOOO, 2012 HOLDS THE RECORD!!!

Record dominoes 8: NSIDC daily sea ice extent - Arctic Sea Ice

 

[Old Rocks]

And the shape of the curve indicates it has a ways to go yet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And the shape of the curve indicates it has a ways to go yet.

This year is likely going to go down to 3.8 million km.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now to see what the Arctic Ocean Clathrates do.

 

[skookerasbil]

All the colorful images are cool. And some on here seem a bit giddy about the changes they see from 2005 on. Like they've won some inconic debate.


So........lets assume for a moment they have!!!!


It means the world is warming..........


I have a question then.


So what?



Now who's giddy??





I gotta say.................every time I see these threads, it makes me think of the Twilight Zone episode "Time Enough at Last" starring Burgess Meredeth. If you havent seen it, the ending is a perfect illustration of the reality for the environmental crusaders in the global warming debate.


No glasses s0ns!!!! ( and the agnostics aint coming with a pair either!!!)

 

[skookerasbil]

Top 10 Must-See Episodes of the Twilight Zone

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank's retarded logic here is "Well, there were natural climate cycles in the past, so it must be natural now!". If we apply CrusaderFrank's retardo-logic in a similar fashion elsewhere, we can say:

Species went extinct naturally in the past, therefore all extinctions must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause extinctions! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Forest fires occurred naturally in the past, therefor all forest fires must be a natural thing now! Humans can't possibly cause forest fires! Anyone who claims they can is a dirty liberal!

Conclusion: Frank's retarded logic is, indeed, totally retarded.

Natural cycles have causes. We know what the causes were in the past that initiated climate shifts. None of them are at play now. That's why the non-retarded people know it's not a natural cycle now. It's solely the brainwashed political cultists who try to deflect from the issue with this frantic handwaving about "natural cycles."

I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any, much less all of the things you claim it does, and there's a good reason why you can't. It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.

Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire. Can you show us how that works?

Of course you can't.

 

[mamooth]

I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any,

Arrhenius did that back in 1896. By the way, why do you have that strange arbitrary fixation on 20ppm? CO2 levels are up 120ppm, about 40% of the pre-industrial level. 40% is a very significant change, would you not agree?

much less all of the things you claim it does,

You mean the things you claim we claim it does. That is, the bizarre things you make up, like your hysterical alarmism of people living in caves and the great UN socialist conspiracy and the coming economic DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

and there's a good reason why you can't.

But we can. We directly measure the the outgoing IR radiation closing down over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies. Smoking gun.

It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to be smart. I can do it, but you look ridiculous when you try.

Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire. Can you show us how that works?

Why do you think 2 ppm of CO2 causes forest fires? That's just whack.

Instead of going off into a jealous rage because AGW science has been successful at making predictions for decades, perhaps you could try some science yourself. That is, propose a theory, and make predictions based on that theory. What denialist theory explains the current warming? What predictions does that theory make?

Remember that any cowardly evasive handwaving about "natural cycles" is a pathetic admission of surrender, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes, so you need to name the specific cause of the magical natural cycle currently in play. Otherwise, you may as well attribute it to fairies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any,

Arrhenius did that back in 1896. By the way, why do you have that strange arbitrary fixation on 20ppm? CO2 levels are up 120ppm, about 40% of the pre-industrial level. 40% is a very significant change, would you not agree?

much less all of the things you claim it does,

You mean the things you claim we claim it does. That is, the bizarre things you make up, like your hysterical alarmism of people living in caves and the great UN socialist conspiracy and the coming economic DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

But we can. We directly measure the the outgoing IR radiation closing down over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies. Smoking gun.

It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to be smart. I can do it, but you look ridiculous when you try.

Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire. Can you show us how that works?

Why do you think 2 ppm of CO2 causes forest fires? That's just whack.

Instead of going off into a jealous rage because AGW science has been successful at making predictions for decades, perhaps you could try some science yourself. That is, propose a theory, and make predictions based on that theory. What denialist theory explains the current warming? What predictions does that theory make?

Remember that any cowardly evasive handwaving about "natural cycles" is a pathetic admission of surrender, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes, so you need to name the specific cause of the magical natural cycle currently in play. Otherwise, you may as well attribute it to fairies.

Arrhenius did no such thing no matter how many times you repeat the same lie.

I don't give a single fuck if its 20 or 200PPM, it's on YOU to show us a repeatable experiment to demonstrate how it works. Arrihenius didn't and NONE of the labs doing this fake "Science" ever did either. 40% of a rounding error is still a rounding error and don't forget that water vapor supposedly does 90% of the heat trapping.

Where are your stats on H2O? Hmmmm?

You claim AGW causes: Droughts, floods, ice storms, heat, cold and can start forest fires.

I think the forest fires are caused by all the usual suspects: lightning, careless campers and AGW Cult arsonists who then blame the fires on Global Warming.