Arctic Melt Now Second Worst

Tue, 2008-09-02 07:44Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Arctic Melt Now Second Worst

Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported last week.

Previous Comments

The satellite era isn’t very old and the time satellites have been taking pictures of arctic sea ice is an even more recent thing. I’d like to know when the first meaningful picture of arctic sea ice was taken. (the 60’s?)

Whatever - it’s like yesterday in climate terms.

Will I find him referring to a decline in global temperatures between 1998 and 2008? And yet Rick claims the difference between the 60s and now is “like yesterday in climate terms.”

thats because I’m arguing on terms set by the other side. You guys want to argue it both ways so thats what you get.

If you’re going to talk about “the other side”, then you should make sure what the other side is. I suspect here you mean the scientific consensus on AGW in the peer-reviewed literature, as compiled by the IPCC. Where does the other side “argue it both ways”?

I think you’ve got it backwards. It’s the “a consensus isn’t scientific” group that argues multiple ways, and assumes that each of them is equally valid. That’s why you have jerks saying both, “they can’t tell how warm it was in the past,” and, “the MWP was warmer than now.” There are other examples.

@Rick, it’s 1979.

@Richard, I like how rather than focus on the increase over last year reversing the multi-year trend, but instead just switch focus to another comparison year to make the data look worse than it is.

Or rather, given how the inactivists are incapable of doing a linear regression (see their claims re: 1998), let’s see what the data say.

tinyurl.com/5v5tae
Dataset: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

Hmm. Reversing the multi-year trend? Or did you mix up signal and noise?

That said, I’d be surprised if it broke 2007’s record. This doesn’t mean it isn’t decreasing (recall that due to noise, each year does NOT need to be lower than the last!), but it’s still cause for worry.

that graph definitely proves that ice melts in the summer

It means that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Are you just ignorant of basic science and logic or are you deliberately dishing out misinformation?

Either way, you people are pathetic.

Ian Forrester

Look bud - My formal education finished up at high school - and even that was a long time ago. But I know this much - Your hyper sensitivity toward an obvious throwaway comment about a simple graph (that doesn’t show much by the way) indicates a weakness in your confidence of your beliefs about your global warming religion. You must believe! Have faith in Al! Ha!!!

Keep it up, you just show how desperate and ignorant you AGW deniers are becoming.

If you know so much then please tell us why the graph is meaningless. I bet you can’t.

The data in the graph is confirmed by taking sediment samples which show that the ice extent is at its lowest for at least 150,000 years and probably a lot longer than that.

You are just a blowhard ignorant pathetic person.

Ian Forrester

thats true - and you are a kindly humble and good gentleman who needs to put us stupid folk in our place - your great knowledge and superior logic will be the salvation of us all. Thanks for fixing the climate dude.

He is just a local alarmist blowhard that throws our ridiculous statements from time to time and pretends that they are authoritative.

IE: “Lowest for at least 150,000 years” Just wild conjecture, not a chance in hell any one on earth could back that up with any sort of proof.

Enjoy the amusement value and move on to more important topics.

Gary said: “throws our ridiculous statements”. So you admit that your statements are ridiculous? Yes I will “throw” them as far as I can since they are just rubbish and lies.

Ian Forrester

Made a typo.
Guess that means you were right all along and the world is actually on the verge of burning to a crysp.

Darn. I was soooooo sure.

Wassat then?

Keep it up,

(but I got stuff to do - I have to get the rent money into the bank and all that) you just show how desperate and ignorant you AGW deniers are becoming.

(I take issue with your charge that I am “becoming” ignorant and desperate. My desperation and ignorance is pretty steady if you check the graphs)

If you know so much then please tell us why the graph is meaningless. I bet you can’t.

(meaningless is your word bud - I said “simple” and that “it doesn’t show much”

The data in the graph is confirmed by taking sediment samples which show that the ice extent is at its lowest for at least 150,000 years and probably a lot longer than that.

(wait a minute - I thought that graph was dealing with 4 years within my life time and yet somehow it’s about 150,000 years - obviously I didn’t look at the whole thing close enough - oh well - it’s small print and all that)

You are just a blowhard ignorant pathetic person.

(no - I’m more than that. I’m just a blowhard ignorant pathetic person on the internet. In real life I’m not so bad - I have references!)

Seems you have a short memory too.

You said: “The satellite era isn’t very old and the time satellites have been taking pictures of arctic sea ice is an even more recent thing. I’d like to know when the first meaningful picture of arctic sea ice was taken. (the 60’s?)

Whatever - it’s like yesterday in climate terms”.

Just pointing out since you have proved and admitted that you do not know what you are talking about, that the data go back far further than the short period of time you seem to think we know about.

Try reading science texts and papers, you will learn a lot more there than what you are finding in the AGW denier sites you are using for your (mis)information.

Ian Forrester

What did Triciatim think during the melt season of 2007? Did Triciatim think, “OMG, the continuing, multi-year, downward trend is getting worse!” Naw, Triciatim was probably repeating a lot of talking points about special circumstances in 2007 – it’s not AGW, it’s special wind patterns, etc. Which is fine: the extraordinary reduction in ice was partly due to other factors (be mindful that special wind patterns could be set up by AGW, though). But here Triciatim says this is a reversal of a multi-year trend and ignores the issue that has been concerning folks, positive feedback. Multiyear ice drastically reduced in 2007, and the thin first year ice was eliminated fairly easily in 2008, reducing albedo (increasing absorption of solar energy), which limits the ability of ice to recover….

PS. The multi-year trend Triciatim refers to, of course, is: 2005 (smallest amount of ice at the time), 2006 (more ice than 2005), 2007 (new record for smallest amount of ice).

Mean while down south, alarmists are blaming Global Warming for record cold in Austrailia.

You just can’t make these things up? LOL. http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-chill-a-symptom-of-climate-chaos-20080901-46yx.html

It means nothing.
Except to alarmists trying to hype up a failing AGW movement and teary eyed adolescents brain washed into thinking the polar bears are dying.
Ice melting up north in the summer is normal and increases and decreases with the North Atlantic oscillation cycle.
Meanwhile down south the alarmists completely ignore:
Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-i.html

What? - you mean the AGW folks cherry pick their data? No Way! - I refuse to believe they would look away from info that doesn’t support AGW. They are above such things - plus they are way to smart to cheat!

For the first time in about the last 125,000 years, the Arctic is an island. Both the Northwest and the Northeast Passages are open. http://tinyurl.com/68odoj

absolute statements about 125,000 years ago. I don’t know about that. Data has to be interpreted. It’s not like Fred and Barney were sending up Satellites and getting pictures.

Keep on spouting your nonsense, it makes you look even more stupd than you previously have done (and that was pretty bad).

Why do you have so much to say about something you obviously know nothing about?

As I said before try reading up on the science concerning climate change and how it can be determined what happened in the distant past.

Ian Forrester

Ian:
Keep on spouting your nonsense, it makes you look even more stupd than you previously have done (and that was pretty bad).

To get the very best science about past climate, you should read papers published by geologists and paleoclimatoligists. The actually study the subject and don’t just make wild assed guesses about it.

But then they don’t agree with AGW so I guess you would never read anything they write.

You crack me up Ian.

Tell us what papers we have all missed. I bet you cannot cite one that stands up to rigorous review.

Ian Forrester

I don’t believe I have seen any paper yet by anyone on the topic of climate history that can stand up to rigorous review.

It is all interpretation of sketchy evedence!!!

That is why Mann’s hockey stick nonsense was so easy to show up as a fraud!

That said, I would most certainly trust their conclusions over those of a computer gamer with CO2 on the brain.

That is why you have so many problems. You know nothing about science and have the gall to accuse eminent scientists of fraud. You are one nasty person.

Ian Forrester

Mann’s piece of crap was accused of being fraud by other scientists, not me.

Here is another example of wild conjecture tossed out as though it were fact:

“first time in about the last 125,000 years, the Arctic is an island.”

There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove that, it is just empty retoric meant to prop up the failed agenda.

I guess I should have read this before I posted

In the coming year as the cooling continues, I predict we will see more and more outrageous claims as the AGW faithful become more and more desperate to keep the scare alive.
With the actual climate not cooperating with the alarmists virtual climate(GCMs), they will begin to panic and say just about anything.
Watch for it. It will be amusing.

Way to go.

Are Rick and Gary the same person, surely two people can’t be that stupid or ignorant.

There are plenty of papers showing what the extent of the ice sheet was 125,000 years ago.

Why not be sensible and do a literature search and see what you can find?

Ian Forrester

They are all guesses and extrapolations at best and wild hysteria at worst.
Even you know that. Nobody is stupid enough to believe anything definitive can be said on that topic.

Oh Wait. Al Gore and Jimmy Hansen have actually see it.

Sorry I forgot.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Ian Forrester

I guess I can’t argue with that insightful comment on the topic.
I bow to the superior debater and his Oh so eloquent argument.

I knew that if I persisted I could eventually make you see reason and accept what >95% of scientific papers agree on.

Ian Forrester

numbers like 95% always make me wonder. It’s like 4 out of 5 dentists agree. Colgate is great. What about the other guy?

95 isn’t 100.

Rick said: “95 isn’t 100.” I can’t believe you actually got something right for once.

However, when we discuss percentages of papers in the scientific literature there are always some that make it through the peer review system and are either wrong and should never have been accepted, or are later shown to be wrong (ever hear about the so called “Iris effect? It doesn’t exist).

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6hfmt5

See here for some papers that made it through which shouldn’t have:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gbhnl
http://preview.tinyurl.com/55omnf

Ian Forrester

Its just a number alarmists pull out of the air in an attempt to sound credible.
Nobody believes it.

2500 in favor.
35000 against.

hmmmmm. Don’t think that is quite 95%.

is to retire to a darkened quiet room and tune in Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Michael Savage. They thereby become imbued with Special Knowledge From On High.

Rick and Gary are saying that it is impossible to know what the climate was like a hundred-thousand years ago?

Umm… as far as I know, the last major ice age isn’t a controversial subject. It happened, and I don’t know a single scientist that refutes that. So exactly how can we know about the last ice age unless we know what the climate was like?

Also when I hear things like “Over here in it’s getting colder, so how can we have Global Warming?” I have to laugh. It’s called Global Climate Change. Average temperatures are rising, but that makes more extreme weather locally. Extremes of warm weather and extremes of cold weather. Anyone who doesn’t know that, doesn’t understand Global Climate Change, and certainly has none of my respect when they try to argue about it.

Please, if you’re not going to make an effort to understand the other persons argument, don’t try to refute it.

“Also when I hear things like “Over here in it’s getting colder, so how can we have Global Warming?” I have to laugh. It’s called Global Climate Change.”

So everyone agrees to stop pointing at the regional phenomenon of Arctic sea ice? well good - I can accept that.

“Rick and Gary are saying that it is impossible to know what the climate was like a hundred-thousand years ago?”

yep it’s impossible and scientists looking back that far have to interpret evidence. Those interpretations are subject to errors and adjustments and corrections and more corrections after that. As far as I know, they haven’t built a time machine that goes back to the past yet.

For your information a large part of science is based on interpreting data. That is why you have to be smart to be a scientist. I don’t know of any experimental instrument which gives completed papers and figures as output. Most that I have worked with give me numbers which I then have to be able to interpret. That is why 50% of experiments are considered to be “controls” so that proper interpretations can be made.

If you ever find any of the instruments you think scientists should be using then please send me one. I can then hire high school drop outs instead of PhD’s to do my work which will make it much cheaper.

Ian Forrester

A lot of what scientists do is establish understanding of the past to be wrong. It follows that current understandings by top scientists are subject to error as well. Thats why I don’t put faith in the current gospel being preached by the white coats, because 30 years from now there will be another major revision…. and that will be wrong too.

Scientists are just explorers searching through things and making up maps of what they think is going on. Right now theres a lot of talk of dragons in the sea.

Why do you continue to make a laughing stock of yourself with your ridiculous comments?

I bet your family, friends, neighbours and employer would get a good laugh at you if they knew you were so stupid.

Ian Forrester

Actually, you don’t “have to be smart to be a scientist.”
(Think physicist Michael Mann). Even Knuckledragger himself is a scientist of sorts, albeit an unsuccessful one.

Pages

[x]

Life in a prison is probably not the safest environment for a person.  But for prisoners in Pennsylvania, life just got a lot more dangerous.

According to a new report, inmates at State Correctional Institution Fayette in LaBelle, Pennsylvania have been experiencing a significant increase in cancer rates.  The report, which was put together by the Abolitionist Law Center and the Human Rights Coalition,...

read more