Greetings, cryonerds.

There was a rapid loss of ice in the Arctic in July but this has now slowed markedly. It is currently at about 1.7 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average for this time of year. This will be a lowish year but will not threaten the 2012 record.

Interestingly the melt has been very lopsided. The ocean north of Siberia is already very clear while the Canadian archipelago is blocked solid.

So, what is mysterious about hot_cold?

dv said:

Greetings, cryonerds.

There was a rapid loss of ice in the Arctic in July but this has now slowed markedly. It is currently at about 1.7 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average for this time of year. This will be a lowish year but will not threaten the 2012 record.

That isn’t good enough! We need to try harder.

Russia may have to export their polar bears to Canada.

OCDC said:

dv said:

Greetings, cryonerds.

There was a rapid loss of ice in the Arctic in July but this has now slowed markedly. It is currently at about 1.7 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average for this time of year. This will be a lowish year but will not threaten the 2012 record.

That isn’t good enough! We need to try harder.

Cant they use sun bloc?

How does the current ice level compare with that over the last 10000 years?

There was a lot more ice 10,000 years ago :-)

some sharpshooting there DA.

;-)

Divine Angel said:

There was a lot more ice 10,000 years ago :-)

Do you think so?

morrie said:

Divine Angel said:

There was a lot more ice 10,000 years ago :-)

Do you think so?

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

I watched that documentary about the woolly mammoth and talking sloth escaping the melting ice. I can do science me.

There is plenty of evidence that the artic ice has been building for the last 6000 years.

Surprising, innit?

morrie said:

morrie said:

Divine Angel said:

There was a lot more ice 10,000 years ago :-)

Do you think so?

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

morrie said:

Do you think so?

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

PF thinks Morrie is TO anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

He also thinks I’m TO as well, go figure.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

morrie said:

Do you think so?

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

He has already seen this one I think when I asked the question “what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago? rb was the only one to respond.
Interesting thing to ponder. Some studies suggest a common ancestor to all modern polar bears in the brown bear some 20000 years ago.
Who knows what happened to all the rest of them.

jjjust moi said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

PF thinks Morrie is TO anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

He also thinks I’m TO as well, go figure.

Have you got your salary this month?

morrie said:

“what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago?

They ate penguins.

Next.

I’ms the smatrs.

morrie said:

“what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago?”

Possibilities include:

- Polar bears can survive without the ice
- The hypothesis that there was less ice between 9000 and 6000 years ago is wrong
- Both of the above
- Something else

Hope that helps :)

sibeen said:

morrie said:

“what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago?

They ate penguins.

Next.

I’ms the smatrs.

The evolution of the diet is another interesting topic. Brown bears eat fish….

morrie said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

“what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago?

They ate penguins.

Next.

I’ms the smatrs.

The evolution of the diet is another interesting topic. Brown bears eat fish….

and other sea life as chance allows.

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia). The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater. In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

morrie said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

He has already seen this one I think when I asked the question “what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago? rb was the only one to respond.
Interesting thing to ponder. Some studies suggest a common ancestor to all modern polar bears in the brown bear some 20000 years ago.
Who knows what happened to all the rest of them.

I’m often the only one to respond.

morrie said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

Ok, so lets make it 9000 years ago.

“From 9000 to 6000 years ago, it was probably much warmer in the Arctic than it is today, and the polar bears survived that period.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-06/polar-bears-face-melting-chemical-cocktail/935020

Its from the ABC, so it must be true.

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

He has already seen this one I think when I asked the question “what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago? rb was the only one to respond.
Interesting thing to ponder. Some studies suggest a common ancestor to all modern polar bears in the brown bear some 20000 years ago.
Who knows what happened to all the rest of them.

I don’t recall your post as expressed above. However the extract below will give you some information as to the Polar Bear’s plight. Assuming the temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was warmer than today, then the Bear did survive, but how well did it survive? Did it just hang on, or did it do well? Going on current trends it seems unlikely to have done well at all. Please read below.

>>Climate change
The IUCN, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, United States Geological Survey and many leading polar bear biologists have expressed grave concerns about the impact of climate change, including the belief that the current warming trend imperils the survival of the species.

The key danger posed by climate change is malnutrition or starvation due to habitat loss. Polar bears hunt seals from a platform of sea ice. Rising temperatures cause the sea ice to melt earlier in the year, driving the bears to shore before they have built sufficient fat reserves to survive the period of scarce food in the late summer and early fall. Reduction in sea-ice cover also forces bears to swim longer distances, which further depletes their energy stores and occasionally leads to drowning. Thinner sea ice tends to deform more easily, which appears to make it more difficult for polar bears to access seals. Insufficient nourishment leads to lower reproductive rates in adult females and lower survival rates in cubs and juvenile bears, in addition to poorer body condition in bears of all ages.

Mothers and cubs have high nutritional requirements, which are not met if the seal-hunting season is too short.
In addition to creating nutritional stress, a warming climate is expected to affect various other aspects of polar bear life: Changes in sea ice affect the ability of pregnant females to build suitable maternity dens. As the distance increases between the pack ice and the coast, females must swim longer distances to reach favored denning areas on land. Thawing of permafrost would affect the bears who traditionally den underground, and warm winters could result in den roofs collapsing or having reduced insulative value. For the polar bears that currently den on multi-year ice, increased ice mobility may result in longer distances for mothers and young cubs to walk when they return to seal-hunting areas in the spring. Disease-causing bacteria and parasites would flourish more readily in a warmer climate.

Problematic interactions between polar bears and humans, such as foraging by bears in garbage dumps, have historically been more prevalent in years when ice-floe breakup occurred early and local polar bears were relatively thin. Increased human-bear interactions, including fatal attacks on humans, are likely to increase as the sea ice shrinks and hungry bears try to find food on land.

The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear’s range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed. The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. This subpopulation feeds heavily on ringed seals in late spring, when newly weaned and easily hunted seal pups are abundant. The late spring hunting season ends for polar bears when the ice begins to melt and break up, and they fast or eat little during the summer until the sea freezes again.

Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season. The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004. Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%.

In Alaska, the effects of sea ice shrinkage have contributed to higher mortality rates in polar bear cubs, and have led to changes in the denning locations of pregnant females. In recent years, polar bears in the Arctic have undertaken longer than usual swims to find prey, resulting in four recorded drownings in the unusually large ice pack regression of 2005.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Climate_change

morrie said:

jjjust moi said:

sibeen said:

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

PF thinks Morrie is TO anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

He also thinks I’m TO as well, go figure.

Have you got your salary this month?

Good to see you thinking about you grandchildren morrie.

morrie said:

How does the current ice level compare with that over the last 10000 years?

According to the graph below it would seem that the temperature change has not been as high, as those of today, for at least 150 thousand years, which mean Polar Bears would not be experiencing the ice melt that they do today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

morrie said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

“what did the polar bears do between 9000 and 6000 years ago?

They ate penguins.

Next.

I’ms the smatrs.

The evolution of the diet is another interesting topic. Brown bears eat fish….

Most Penguins are in the Antarctic, whilst Polar Bears are only in Arctic. Polar Bears do not eat Penguins.

And yes Polar Bear do eat fish amongst many other food items. Polar Bears mainly eat seals and dead whales etc.

morrie said:

jjjust moi said:

sibeen said:

Careful, morrie. You’re treading a fine line there. We wouldn’t want the wrath of PF to be unleashed.

PF thinks Morrie is TO anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

He also thinks I’m TO as well, go figure.

Have you got your salary this month?

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

Thanks for the relevant posts, PF.

roughbarked said:

Thanks for the relevant posts, PF.

A pleasure rb, we can’t have all this misinformation being stated without correction.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

How does the current ice level compare with that over the last 10000 years?

According to the graph below it would seem that the temperature change has not been as high, as those of today, for at least 150 thousand years, which mean Polar Bears would not be experiencing the ice melt that they do today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

sigh
have a look at the ice volume graph.
The polar bears haven’t had as much ice as they do today for 150000 years.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

How does the current ice level compare with that over the last 10000 years?

According to the graph below it would seem that the temperature change has not been as high, as those of today, for at least 150 thousand years, which mean Polar Bears would not be experiencing the ice melt that they do today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

sigh
have a look at the ice volume graph.
The polar bears haven’t had as much ice as they do today for 150000 years.

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

According to the graph below it would seem that the temperature change has not been as high, as those of today, for at least 150 thousand years, which mean Polar Bears would not be experiencing the ice melt that they do today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

sigh
have a look at the ice volume graph.
The polar bears haven’t had as much ice as they do today for 150000 years.

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

Yes, ok, I got that wrong.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Thanks for the relevant posts, PF.

A pleasure rb, we can’t have all this misinformation being stated without correction.

What mis-information?
I asked some questions
I asked what the sea ice extent has been for the last 10,000 years.
(before that I asked what happened to the polar bears)

You might like to read this paper which suggests that most studies indicate there was less ice around 10,000 years ago than there is today.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

>>You might like to read this paper which suggests that most studies indicate there was less ice around 10,000 years ago than there is today.<<

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

Going on your paper’s references, you could obviously spend a great deal of time working out the situation of ice coverage and thickness, as it is highly variable from place to place and mostly based on modelling, which in themselves vary considerably. Like most things connected to the climate, things are highly complex and getting everything into a model is almost impossible as the Abstract below indicates.

As there is obviously scientific debate over this issue we shall have to wait for the experts to agree on the circumstances, but even so, your reference was quite clear about there not being an absence of summer Arctic Sea Ice during the last warming period. Yet I recall a number of scientific people recently stating there was a strong likelihood that it could be sea-ice free (summer) in a few decades. Should this come to pass then it would surely clarify the situation. Yet either way, it is not a good look for the Polar Bears that hunt on the sea ice. As I said before, they obviously survived the last warm period, but did the just hang on or not, as current observations suggest they would not fair well.

S. Funder, et al.
A 10,000-year record of arctic ocean sea-ice variability—view from the beach
Science, 333 (2011), pp. 747–750
Abstract
We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ∼8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ∼1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.

>>What mis-information?
I asked some questions
I asked what the sea ice extent has been for the last 10,000 years.
(before that I asked what happened to the polar bears)<<

You did include question marks, but your other comments strongly indicated a mocking attitude, which was also supported by a couple of like-minded individuals, of whom I referred to as being like peas in a pod.

> It is currently at about 1.7 standard deviations

The detection of the Higgs required 5 standard deviations for international acceptance.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

jjjust moi said:

PF thinks Morrie is TO anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

He also thinks I’m TO as well, go figure.

Have you got your salary this month?

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

You also have a very poor memory.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Have you got your salary this month?

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

You also have a very poor memory.

I’m lost.. which one is the antagonist?

Arts said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

You also have a very poor memory.

I’m lost.. which one is the antagonist?

Both or none I think

First, I’d like to ask DV – what’s you fucking agenda?

I have seen you over the years post several times about possible Arctic ice record lows coming.

I have never seen a post by you concerning the record high sea ice levels currently occurring in the ANTARCTIC.

Why is this DV ?
========================
From –
Deep Oceans Are Cooling Amidst A Sea of Modelling Uncertainty:
New Research on Ocean Heat Content
2014
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University:

Concerning the paper Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean
Carl Wunsch. Patrick Heimbach
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/heatcontentchange_26dec2013_ph.pdf

>>> of which I started a thread –
From: The_observer
Subject: Ocean Heat Content, a new analysis ID: 564040 Date: 23/07/2014 13:08:23
extract

Most interesting is the observed cooling throughout the upper 700 meters of the Arctic. There have been 2 competing explanations for the unusually warm Arctic air temperature that heavily weights the global average. CO2 driven hypotheses argue global warming has reduced polar sea ice that previously reflected sunlight, and now the exposed dark waters are absorbing more heat and raising water and air temperatures.
But clearly a cooling upper Arctic Ocean suggests any absorbed heat is insignificant. Despite greater inflows of warm Atlantic water, declining heat content of the upper 700 meters supports the competing hypothesis that warmer Arctic air temperatures are, at least in part, the result of increased ventilation of heat that was previously trapped by a thick insulating ice cover.7 That second hypothesis is also in agreement with extensive observations that Arctic air temperatures had been cooling in the 80s and 90s. Warming occurred after subfreezing winds, re‑directed by the Arctic Oscillation, drove thick multi-year ice out from the Arctic.11

No comments from DV on that thread

PermeateFree said:

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

And you PermeateFree ‘fuckwit’; who abuses me for telling you El Nino & La Nina’s cannot occur similtainiously;

that graph YOU POSTED, clearly shows that the 4, FOUR, interglacial that preceded this interglacial were WARMER!

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Have you got your salary this month?

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

You also have a very poor memory.

Well please enlighten me, but you can’t, because it is a figment of your imagination.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

And you PermeateFree ‘fuckwit’; who abuses me for telling you El Nino & La Nina’s cannot occur similtainiously;

that graph YOU POSTED, clearly shows that the 4, FOUR, interglacial that preceded this interglacial were WARMER!

I know, but do you? Think about it Observer and try to work it out.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

And you PermeateFree ‘fuckwit’; who abuses me for telling you El Nino & La Nina’s cannot occur similtainiously;

that graph YOU POSTED, clearly shows that the 4, FOUR, interglacial that preceded this interglacial were WARMER!

I know, but do you? Think about it Observer and try to work it out.

:) wonder how many will do the same?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

And you PermeateFree ‘fuckwit’; who abuses me for telling you El Nino & La Nina’s cannot occur similtainiously;

that graph YOU POSTED, clearly shows that the 4, FOUR, interglacial that preceded this interglacial were WARMER!

Why would anthropomorphically generated CC look the same as naturally occurring swings TO?

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie I have never said you were The_observer, nor have I said jjjust moi was. Although the attitudes of you all are very much like peas in a pod.

You also have a very poor memory.

Well please enlighten me, but you can’t, because it is a figment of your imagination.

Well, you have accused both me and Morrie of being TO with new handles.

Ring any bells for you?

The_observer said:

First, I’d like to ask DV – what’s you fucking agenda?

I have seen you over the years post several times about possible Arctic ice record lows coming.

I have never seen a post by you concerning the record high sea ice levels currently occurring in the ANTARCTIC.

Why is this DV ?
========================
From –
Deep Oceans Are Cooling Amidst A Sea of Modelling Uncertainty:
New Research on Ocean Heat Content
2014
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University:

Concerning the paper Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean
Carl Wunsch. Patrick Heimbach
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/heatcontentchange_26dec2013_ph.pdf

>>> of which I started a thread –
From: The_observer
Subject: Ocean Heat Content, a new analysis ID: 564040 Date: 23/07/2014 13:08:23
extract

Most interesting is the observed cooling throughout the upper 700 meters of the Arctic. There have been 2 competing explanations for the unusually warm Arctic air temperature that heavily weights the global average. CO2 driven hypotheses argue global warming has reduced polar sea ice that previously reflected sunlight, and now the exposed dark waters are absorbing more heat and raising water and air temperatures.
But clearly a cooling upper Arctic Ocean suggests any absorbed heat is insignificant. Despite greater inflows of warm Atlantic water, declining heat content of the upper 700 meters supports the competing hypothesis that warmer Arctic air temperatures are, at least in part, the result of increased ventilation of heat that was previously trapped by a thick insulating ice cover.7 That second hypothesis is also in agreement with extensive observations that Arctic air temperatures had been cooling in the 80s and 90s. Warming occurred after subfreezing winds, re‑directed by the Arctic Oscillation, drove thick multi-year ice out from the Arctic.11

No comments from DV on that thread

Where do you get this stuff from Observer? It’s the biggest load of garbage imaginable!

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

You also have a very poor memory.

Well please enlighten me, but you can’t, because it is a figment of your imagination.

Well, you have accused both me and Morrie of being TO with new handles.

Ring any bells for you?

I have not! All I have said is you are like peas in a pod. It is all in your heavily biased mind jjjust moi.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Well please enlighten me, but you can’t, because it is a figment of your imagination.

Well, you have accused both me and Morrie of being TO with new handles.

Ring any bells for you?

I have not! All I have said is you are like peas in a pod. It is all in your heavily biased mind jjjust moi.

Very poor memory or a liar, or perhaps some ratio of both.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Well, you have accused both me and Morrie of being TO with new handles.

Ring any bells for you?

I have not! All I have said is you are like peas in a pod. It is all in your heavily biased mind jjjust moi.

Very poor memory or a liar, or perhaps some ratio of both.

You are the one making the accusations, so where is the evidence? You cannot produce it, because it is only in your mind. As for your last comment, I suggest you apply that to yourself.

Yes, what doe that dv character think he’s playing at?

In the interests of balance, here is a skeptics view of what is happening at the Antarctic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

A very different story from the Arctic, I think you will agree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, what doe that dv character think he’s playing at?

In the interests of balance, here is a skeptics view of what is happening at the Antarctic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

A very different story from the Arctic, I think you will agree.

Global Temperature Trends: 2013 Summation
NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis. The analysis of 2013 data shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

To make matters worse, the temperatures at the poles are considerably higher than other parts of the globe.

>>To make matters worse, the temperatures at the poles are considerably higher than other parts of the globe.

Blimey!!!

Peak Warming Man said:

>>To make matters worse, the temperatures at the poles are considerably higher than other parts of the globe.

Blimey!!!

Yes could be worded better, something like “temperature INCREASES at the poles are considerably higher than other parts of the globe.”

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you ought to study the above graph morrie, it is very enlightening and you might learn something.

And you PermeateFree ‘fuckwit’; who abuses me for telling you El Nino & La Nina’s cannot occur similtainiously;

that graph YOU POSTED, clearly shows that the 4, FOUR, interglacial that preceded this interglacial were WARMER!

I know, but do you? Think about it Observer and try to work it out.

NO, you don’t know

CO2 and Temperature: Ice Core Correlations
Reference
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999.
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

What was done
The authors examined contemporaneous records of atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores that extended back in time through the last three glacial-interglacial transitions.

What was learned
In all three of the most recent glacial terminations, the earth warmed well before there was any increase in the air’s CO2 content. In the words of the authors, “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.” During the penultimate (next to last) warm period, there is also a 15,000-year time interval where distinct cooling does not elicit any change in atmospheric CO2; and when the air’s CO2 content gradually drops over the next 20,000 years, air temperatures either rise or remain fairly constant.

Variations in Atmospheric CO2, Temperature and Global Ice Volume Derived from the Vostok Ice Core
Reference
Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

What was done
Using proxy data, the author performed a statistical analysis (lagged, generalized least-squares regression and bootstrap resampling) to estimate the phase relations (leads/lags) of atmospheric CO2 concentration, air temperature and global ice volume over the past 420,000 years as derived from the Vostok ice core.

What was learned
Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration were found to lag behind variations in air temperature by 1.3 to 5 ka (thousand years). Phase relations between CO2 and global ice volume were not as clear cut. When CO2 values were compared with global ice volume data derived from a delta 18O record of a marine sediment core, it was shown that between 420 and 196 ka years ago, variations in CO2 lagged behind changes in global ice volume by 1.4 ± 3.7 ka, whereas from 150 ka to the present they lead by 6.2 ± 2.7 ka. A more uniform phase relationship was obtained when comparing the Vostok CO2 record with a Vostok delta 18O record. Although considerable scatter existed in the data, atmospheric CO2 concentration consistently led global ice volume by an average of 3.9 ± 0.5 ka.

CO2 and Temperature: Who Leads the Dance of the Geophysical Parameters?
Reference
Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

What was done
The authors obtained a high-resolution record of atmospheric CO2 concentration spanning the period from 60 to 20 thousand years before present from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core, after which they compared this CO2 history with a temperature history obtained from the Antarctic Vostok ice core.

What was learned
Over the period of record, there were four distinct spikes in both the atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature histories, with temperature rising by approximately 2°C and CO2 concentration rising by about 20 ppm. One type of statistical test performed on the data by the authors suggested that the shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged those in the air’s temperature by approximately 900 years. A second statistical test yielded a mean lag time of 1200 years; while a third such test, performed by Fischer et al. (1999) on data pertaining to early deglacial changes in the last three glacial-interglacial transitions, yielded a mean lag time of 600 years.

Reference
Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

What was done
The authors, partners in a long-term collaboration among Russia, the United States and France, retrieved the deepest ice core ever recovered – reaching a depth of 3,623 meters – from the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica. By careful analysis of this historic ice core, they reconstructed trends of many climatic and environmental parameters, including temperature and CO2 concentration, over a period of 420,000 years.

What was learned
Over four glacial-interglacial cycles, the succession of changes through each cycle of glacial growth and termination was similar, with atmospheric and climatic properties oscillating between fairly stable lower and upper bounds. Surface temperature, for example, varied over a range of approximately 12°C, while atmospheric CO2 concentration ranged from a low of 180 ppm to a high of 290 ppm.

The authors note that “the new data confirm that the warmest temperature at stage 7.5 was slightly warmer than the Holocene .” They also note that the interglacials preceding and following the one at 238,000 years ago were warmer still. In fact, from the graphs they present, it can be seen that all of the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene were warmer than the current one, and by an average temperature in excess of 2°C.

The authors additionally found that (1) “the Holocene, which has already lasted 11,000 years, is, by far, the longest stable warm period recorded in Antarctica during the past 420,000 years,” (2) “the climate record makes it unlikely that the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed during the past 420,000 years,” (3) “during glacial inception … the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years”
============================================================

So, elevated levels of CO2 was not the reason past interglacials were warmer than now, because rises in CO2 lagged behind rises in temperature, falls in levels lagged behind falls in temperature, &, maximum CO2 levels were also lower than at present.

Referring to out dated information again

CrazyNeutrino said:

Referring to out dated information again

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

The_observer said:

So, elevated levels of CO2 was not the reason past interglacials were warmer than now, because rises in CO2 lagged behind rises in temperature, falls in levels lagged behind falls in temperature, &, maximum CO2 levels were also lower than at present.

Which clearly indicates that the current levels of CO2 are a completely unexpected phenomenon in the natural scheme of things and therefore unprecedented.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Referring to out dated information again

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Sure

The report is from 1999

it is 15 years old

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Referring to out dated information again

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Sure

The report is from 1999

it is 15 years old

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Sure

The report is from 1999

it is 15 years old

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Sure

The report is from 1999

it is 15 years old

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

You canna change history laddie.

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi said:

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

You canna change history laddie.

technology and analysis can change a lot in 15 years

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Referring to out dated information again

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Still recycling your old rubbish Observer, when will you wake up to yourself as you are looking like a fool?

>>Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. <<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

So, elevated levels of CO2 was not the reason past interglacials were warmer than now, because rises in CO2 lagged behind rises in temperature, falls in levels lagged behind falls in temperature, &, maximum CO2 levels were also lower than at present.

Which clearly indicates that the current levels of CO2 are a completely unexpected phenomenon in the natural scheme of things and therefore unprecedented.

No, historically co2 levels have been far higher.

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Sure

The report is from 1999

it is 15 years old

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

how pathetic.

It’s out dated only when & if other evidence debunks it, & that hasn’t happened.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Referring to out dated information again

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Still recycling your old rubbish Observer, when will you wake up to yourself as you are looking like a fool?

>>Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. <<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

no, no, no,,,

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

The_observer said:

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

So you disagree that rising CO2 will cause rising temperature? You dispute the science?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

So, elevated levels of CO2 was not the reason past interglacials were warmer than now, because rises in CO2 lagged behind rises in temperature, falls in levels lagged behind falls in temperature, &, maximum CO2 levels were also lower than at present.

Which clearly indicates that the current levels of CO2 are a completely unexpected phenomenon in the natural scheme of things and therefore unprecedented.

No, historically co2 levels have been far higher.

Ahh the Plimer argument. Yes there have been a number of mass extinction events in the world’s history.

:)))

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

jjjust moi said:

And how will that affect history fro 400,000 years ago to the present?

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

how pathetic.

It’s out dated only when & if other evidence debunks it, & that hasn’t happened.

Which has now been supplied.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

really; why didn’t you enlighten me then?

Still recycling your old rubbish Observer, when will you wake up to yourself as you are looking like a fool?

>>Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. <<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

no, no, no,,,

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

Why don’t you read the link Observer, it even has graphs.

:)))

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

So you disagree that rising CO2 will cause rising temperature? You dispute the science?

a subtle effect. Temps dropped ending interglacial highs when co2 was at peak levels.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

the report is 15 years old

it is outdated

how pathetic.

It’s out dated only when & if other evidence debunks it, & that hasn’t happened.

Which has now been supplied.

there’s been nothing supplied to discredit the data that proves rises in co2 lagged behind rises in temperature.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Still recycling your old rubbish Observer, when will you wake up to yourself as you are looking like a fool?

>>Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. <<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

no, no, no,,,

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

Why don’t you read the link Observer, it even has graphs.

:)))

it’s quite simple,,, temps dropped ending interglacial periods when co2 was peaking.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

how pathetic.

It’s out dated only when & if other evidence debunks it, & that hasn’t happened.

Which has now been supplied.

there’s been nothing supplied to discredit the data that proves rises in co2 lagged behind rises in temperature.

If you are going to get into scientific argument Observer, it helps if you can read.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

no, no, no,,,

temperatures dropped when co2 peaked. Had no effect

Why don’t you read the link Observer, it even has graphs.

:)))

it’s quite simple,,, temps dropped ending interglacial periods when co2 was peaking.

READ THE BLOODY LINK. Going now.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Which has now been supplied.

there’s been nothing supplied to discredit the data that proves rises in co2 lagged behind rises in temperature.

If you are going to get into scientific argument Observer, it helps if you can read.

there’s been nothing to read in that regard

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

I have not! All I have said is you are like peas in a pod. It is all in your heavily biased mind jjjust moi.

Very poor memory or a liar, or perhaps some ratio of both.

You are the one making the accusations, so where is the evidence? You cannot produce it, because it is only in your mind. As for your last comment, I suggest you apply that to yourself.

you are quite correct jjjust moi,,, he is a liar, a dammed liar

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, what doe that dv character think he’s playing at?

In the interests of balance, here is a skeptics view of what is happening at the Antarctic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

A very different story from the Arctic, I think you will agree.

firstly rev, skepticlescience is anything other than a “sceptics view’ as the the site is a propaganda wing for left wing climate alarmism.

You citing it is like me quoting Alan Jones.
In any case; from that article,,,about land ice-

“The land ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not due to surface melting, as the summer temperatures in Antarctica are generally always below freezing, and measured changes in precipitation cannot explain it either. Instead, the melting is occurring due to warm ocean water melting the land ice around its edges, resulting in a spreading of this ice loss inland:

The influx in warm water onto the continental shelf in this region is not entirely understood but is probably at least partly linked to increased westerly winds that have occurred as a result of reduced stratospheric ozone levels since the mid-20th Century (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).”

cooling in that region

southern ocean sea surface temp cooling

read a bit about volcanic activity under the land ice causing melting

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

how pathetic.

It’s out dated only when & if other evidence debunks it, & that hasn’t happened.

Which has now been supplied.

there’s been nothing supplied to discredit the data that proves rises in co2 lagged behind rises in temperature.

à Shakun son goût

Bit od science for you Observer in part response to your post 575807

>>When a glacier is in balance or flowing at its balance velocity, net mass will remain balanced. However, when a glacier accelerates while near or at its balance velocity, the outputs resultantly increase but the inputs do not, thereby shifting the glacier regime to one of negative mass balance or net ice loss. This situation is particularly important because accelerated ice flow is the key method through which the Antarctic ice sheets incur a net ice loss. Accelerations such as these occur through two primary mechanisms. The first of which is caused by surface melt water reaching the glacial bed causing basal lubrication therefore reducing the frictional forces at the bed and thus increasing ice flow (Bell 2008).

The second mechanism refers to when the forces at the downstream terminus of a glacier or ice stream are disturbed or altered. This can occur through removing buttressing ice shelves or by shifting the glacier’s grounding line (point where glacier ice reaches floatation). The presence of an ice shelf provides a longitudinal compressive force which slows the flow of ice streams. If removal of this compressive force occurs, velocity of ice streams increase. This has been observed directly by Scambos et al (2004) and Rignot et al (2004) through both visual observations (Scambos) and radar interferometry (Rignot).<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm

PermeateFree said:

Bit od science for you Observer in part response to your post 575807

>>When a glacier is in balance or flowing at its balance velocity, net mass will remain balanced. However, when a glacier accelerates while near or at its balance velocity, the outputs resultantly increase but the inputs do not, thereby shifting the glacier regime to one of negative mass balance or net ice loss. This situation is particularly important because accelerated ice flow is the key method through which the Antarctic ice sheets incur a net ice loss. Accelerations such as these occur through two primary mechanisms. The first of which is caused by surface melt water reaching the glacial bed causing basal lubrication therefore reducing the frictional forces at the bed and thus increasing ice flow (Bell 2008).

The second mechanism refers to when the forces at the downstream terminus of a glacier or ice stream are disturbed or altered. This can occur through removing buttressing ice shelves or by shifting the glacier’s grounding line (point where glacier ice reaches floatation). The presence of an ice shelf provides a longitudinal compressive force which slows the flow of ice streams. If removal of this compressive force occurs, velocity of ice streams increase. This has been observed directly by Scambos et al (2004) and Rignot et al (2004) through both visual observations (Scambos) and radar interferometry (Rignot).<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm

Predicting the future now are you?

It is not surprising that “Deniers” hate Skeptical Science, as this organisation scientifically examine and expose all the misinformation produced by them. Below is the basis of the organisation and the scientific rigour involved in their investigations. There are many links in the text (not shown here) where further explanation is provided.

>>Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?<<
http://www.theconsensusproject.com/

>>You can download the following data related to our research:
Details of each paper and ratings based on the papers’ abstract (Year, Paper Title, Journal, Authors, Category rating (based on abstract), Endorsement level (based on abstract))

Ratings by the authors of the papers (Year, Abstract Endorsement Level, Self-Rated Endorsement Level)

First and second ratings by our team. Ratings are ordered sequentially. E.g., in order that original ratings were made (Article Id #, Original endorsement rating, Original category rating, Endorsement rating after consultation stage, Category rating after consultation stage)

Data of 1000 “no position” abstracts that were reexamined for expressions of uncertainty about AGW (Article Id #, Expression of uncertainty on AGW. 0 = no position expressed on AGW. 1 = expression of uncertainty)

The survey protocol used by the rating team

All the articles listed by Id number (Article Id #, Year of Publication and Paper Title)<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Bit od science for you Observer in part response to your post 575807

>>When a glacier is in balance or flowing at its balance velocity, net mass will remain balanced. However, when a glacier accelerates while near or at its balance velocity, the outputs resultantly increase but the inputs do not, thereby shifting the glacier regime to one of negative mass balance or net ice loss. This situation is particularly important because accelerated ice flow is the key method through which the Antarctic ice sheets incur a net ice loss. Accelerations such as these occur through two primary mechanisms. The first of which is caused by surface melt water reaching the glacial bed causing basal lubrication therefore reducing the frictional forces at the bed and thus increasing ice flow (Bell 2008).

The second mechanism refers to when the forces at the downstream terminus of a glacier or ice stream are disturbed or altered. This can occur through removing buttressing ice shelves or by shifting the glacier’s grounding line (point where glacier ice reaches floatation). The presence of an ice shelf provides a longitudinal compressive force which slows the flow of ice streams. If removal of this compressive force occurs, velocity of ice streams increase. This has been observed directly by Scambos et al (2004) and Rignot et al (2004) through both visual observations (Scambos) and radar interferometry (Rignot).<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm

Predicting the future now are you?

Science too heavy for you jjjust moi?

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Bit od science for you Observer in part response to your post 575807

>>When a glacier is in balance or flowing at its balance velocity, net mass will remain balanced. However, when a glacier accelerates while near or at its balance velocity, the outputs resultantly increase but the inputs do not, thereby shifting the glacier regime to one of negative mass balance or net ice loss. This situation is particularly important because accelerated ice flow is the key method through which the Antarctic ice sheets incur a net ice loss. Accelerations such as these occur through two primary mechanisms. The first of which is caused by surface melt water reaching the glacial bed causing basal lubrication therefore reducing the frictional forces at the bed and thus increasing ice flow (Bell 2008).

The second mechanism refers to when the forces at the downstream terminus of a glacier or ice stream are disturbed or altered. This can occur through removing buttressing ice shelves or by shifting the glacier’s grounding line (point where glacier ice reaches floatation). The presence of an ice shelf provides a longitudinal compressive force which slows the flow of ice streams. If removal of this compressive force occurs, velocity of ice streams increase. This has been observed directly by Scambos et al (2004) and Rignot et al (2004) through both visual observations (Scambos) and radar interferometry (Rignot).<<

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm

Predicting the future now are you?

Science too heavy for you jjjust moi?

Bit od science for you Observer in part response to your post 575807

Have a look at the post number.

Sloppy, like the rest of your shit.

By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.

>>By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.<<

Well I suppose they have set themselves up to correct the misinformation provided by the fossil fuel industry and their self-interested followers, not to mention the ignorant and the usual nutters.

PermeateFree said:

>>By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.<<

Well I suppose they have set themselves up to correct the misinformation provided by the fossil fuel industry and their self-interested followers, not to mention the ignorant and the usual nutters.

Here is a group you would probably be interested to join PF.

http://ameg.me/

PermeateFree said:

>>By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.<<

Well I suppose they have set themselves up to correct the misinformation provided by the fossil fuel industry and their self-interested followers, not to mention the ignorant and the usual nutters.

They also have plenty of dissent in the comments.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

>>By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.<<

Well I suppose they have set themselves up to correct the misinformation provided by the fossil fuel industry and their self-interested followers, not to mention the ignorant and the usual nutters.

They also have plenty of dissent in the comments.

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

Why didn’t we have a methane crisis 9000 years ago?

I just wanted to make it quite clear fw, nothing you post fw is worth reading,,, so I don’t

morrie said:

Why didn’t we have a methane crisis 9000 years ago?

Permafrost

Study: Climate-cooling arctic lakes soak up greenhouse gases
http://uafcornerstone.net/arctic_lakes_july2014/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/a-flip-flop-on-arctic-permafrost-thaws-actually-a-net-cooling-rather-than-a-warming/

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

>>By the way your much loved scepticscience site is a self confessed biased site.<<

Well I suppose they have set themselves up to correct the misinformation provided by the fossil fuel industry and their self-interested followers, not to mention the ignorant and the usual nutters.

They also have plenty of dissent in the comments.

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

Would you call yourself a nutter Observer? I think most people would, your comments are just crazy.

>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/a-flip-flop-on-arctic-permafrost-thaws-actually-a-net-cooling-rather-than-a-warming/

more misinformation from that rag, Nature?

Thanks for the reference as it has been puzzling me.

The_observer said:

I just wanted to make it quite clear fw, nothing you post fw is worth reading,,, so I don’t

And so you never learn, guess we have your problem.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

They also have plenty of dissent in the comments.

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

Would you call yourself a nutter Observer? I think most people would, your comments are just crazy.

you are totally fucked up dickhead, nothing but crap posted as usual…

how“s those simultaneously occurring El Nino & La nina events coming along fw ?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I just wanted to make it quite clear fw, nothing you post fw is worth reading,,, so I don’t

And so you never learn, guess we have your problem.

I don’t read crap, that’s why I learn fw

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.

Would you call yourself a nutter Observer? I think most people would, your comments are just crazy.

you are totally fucked up dickhead, nothing but crap posted as usual…

how“s those simultaneously occurring El Nino & La nina events coming along fw ?

You are totally weird Observer. How have you managed to survive so long?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I just wanted to make it quite clear fw, nothing you post fw is worth reading,,, so I don’t

And so you never learn, guess we have your problem.

I don’t read crap, that’s why I learn fw

:))))

PermeateFree said:

how“s those simultaneously occurring El Nino & La nina events coming along fw ?

You are totally weird Observer. How have you managed to survive so long?

yep, best you can do

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

And so you never learn, guess we have your problem.

I don’t read crap, that’s why I learn fw

:))))

>>> :)))) <<<

so that’s what an ignorant fuck stick looks like

Unbeknown to all of you, I am actually a member of an international geo-engineering group that has been applying advanced techniques to stabilise the global climate. We have only been at it for the last 20 years, but I think you will have to agree, our results are impressive so far. ;)

morrie said:

Unbeknown to all of you, I am actually a member of an international geo-engineering group that has been applying advanced techniques to stabilise the global climate. We have only been at it for the last 20 years, but I think you will have to agree, our results are impressive so far. ;)

ever heard of white paint?

wookiemeister said:

morrie said:

Unbeknown to all of you, I am actually a member of an international geo-engineering group that has been applying advanced techniques to stabilise the global climate. We have only been at it for the last 20 years, but I think you will have to agree, our results are impressive so far. ;)

ever heard of white paint?

sshhhh!

morrie said:

Unbeknown to all of you, I am actually a member of an international geo-engineering group that has been applying advanced techniques to stabilise the global climate. We have only been at it for the last 20 years, but I think you will have to agree, our results are impressive so far. ;)

and here I am blaming Little Jonny Howard’s second term in office for the pause

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I don’t read crap, that’s why I learn fw

:))))

>>> :)))) <<<

so that’s what an ignorant fuck stick looks like

it looks ugly but feels great

morrie said:

Why didn’t we have a methane crisis 9000 years ago?

If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice, so if we stopped emitting co2 today, they would continue do so to a similar extent as during the warmest period following the last Ice Age. You must remember that changes during this time were very slow and probably took hundreds of years if not thousands, but now the rate of change is measured in decades instead. So probably there would be very little difference in temperature between then and now, hence most of the permafrost would be unaffected as it is today.

The big difference is the aftermath of the last increase in temperature, was from the very low base of an ice age. What we have now is temperature increases from roughly where the highest level was once the climate stabilised.

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

:))))

>>> :)))) <<<

so that’s what an ignorant fuck stick looks like

it looks ugly but feels great

said the Adult Warehouse salesgirl to the spinster

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

>>> :)))) <<<

so that’s what an ignorant fuck stick looks like

it looks ugly but feels great

said the Adult Warehouse salesgirl to the spinster

yeah but look out for the splinters

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Why didn’t we have a methane crisis 9000 years ago?

If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

where does he come up with this shit

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

how“s those simultaneously occurring El Nino & La nina events coming along fw ?

You are totally weird Observer. How have you managed to survive so long?

yep, best you can do

Your problem Observer, whereas I admitted I was wrong over that particular point, you NEVER EVER admit you are wrong despite the most stringent scientific evidence that you are.

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

it looks ugly but feels great

said the Adult Warehouse salesgirl to the spinster

yeah but look out for the splinters

and always use protection, miss

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

how“s those simultaneously occurring El Nino & La nina events coming along fw ?

You are totally weird Observer. How have you managed to survive so long?

yep, best you can do

Your problem Observer, whereas I admitted I was wrong over that particular point, you NEVER EVER admit you are wrong despite the most stringent scientific evidence that you are.

that’s because I’m still waiting

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Why didn’t we have a methane crisis 9000 years ago?

If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

where does he come up with this shit

Well I think most people know this to be the case Observer and if you don’t, who cares?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

where does he come up with this shit

Well I think most people know this to be the case Observer and if you don’t, who cares?

NO

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

where does he come up with this shit

Well I think most people know this to be the case Observer and if you don’t, who cares?

NO

Anyway, I’m having dinner. You would daft to miss that for all the repetitive garbage that Observer churns out over and over again. If people have not worked out the nonsense Observer sprouts here, then they will never be convinced no matter what evidence is produced.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Well I think most people know this to be the case Observer and if you don’t, who cares?

NO

Anyway, I’m having dinner. You would daft to miss that for all the repetitive garbage that Observer churns out over and over again. If people have not worked out the nonsense Observer sprouts here, then they will never be convinced no matter what evidence is produced.

Oh, the pain, the pain

morrie said:

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

The temperature increase was much slower than today, although the final global temperature when the climate stabilised would probably differ little to what it is today.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

The temperature increase was much slower than today, although the final global temperature when the climate stabilised would probably differ little to what it is today.

there is NO evidence to back that up.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

The temperature increase was much slower than today, although the final global temperature when the climate stabilised would probably differ little to what it is today.

Um, er, that didn’t answer the question. Slower increases should provide more time for melting of both types of ice.

morrie said:

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

interesting question that I don’t see an answer to yet.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>If you think about it, todays temperatures are melting both sea and land ice,

so why weren’t the (higher) temperatures in the immediate past doing the same, particularly if they had longer to do it?

The temperature increase was much slower than today, although the final global temperature when the climate stabilised would probably differ little to what it is today.

Um, er, that didn’t answer the question. Slower increases should provide more time for melting of both types of ice.

Well that aids my argument that with more time at a lower rate of climate change, ice melt would probably be not much different than today’s situation with a faster rate of change.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

The temperature increase was much slower than today, although the final global temperature when the climate stabilised would probably differ little to what it is today.

Um, er, that didn’t answer the question. Slower increases should provide more time for melting of both types of ice.

Well that aids my argument that with more time at a lower rate of climate change, ice melt would probably be not much different than today’s situation with a faster rate of change.

Then why wasn’t there a methane crisis as I think we both know that the ice extent was less than today and the temperature was higher?

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Oh I guess the 2 minute jobby

dv said:

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Oh I guess the 2 minute jobby

Then perhaps you might like to comment on PF’s analysis of the extent of ice melt in the two different scenarios?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Um, er, that didn’t answer the question. Slower increases should provide more time for melting of both types of ice.

Well that aids my argument that with more time at a lower rate of climate change, ice melt would probably be not much different than today’s situation with a faster rate of change.

Then why wasn’t there a methane crisis as I think we both know that the ice extent was less than today and the temperature was higher?

Remember after the ice age, you were starting from a very low base and when temperatures eventually stabilized they probably were not much different from that of today and the melting of the permafrost, which is only now beginning to melt to release methane and/or co2. Therefore it is possible that environmental conditions were not sufficiently extreme to cause further temperature rises, especially as the drop of co2/methane from other causes would already be happening. In our situation there is no natural reduction sufficient to offset what is being put into the environment.

morrie said:

dv said:

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Oh I guess the 2 minute jobby

Then perhaps you might like to comment on PF’s analysis of the extent of ice melt in the two different scenarios?

Oh, I doubt I would like to fall into the Observer/permeatefree nexus of pain.

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Probably the one over two minutes, but that is not a comparison of today’s climate situation, as with us, the temperature will very likely continue to rise and eventually span a considerable amount of time to melt even more ice and release even more co2/methane from the permafrost.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Probably the one over two minutes, but that is not a comparison of today’s climate situation, as with us, the temperature will very likely continue to rise and eventually span a considerable amount of time to melt even more ice and release even more co2/methane from the permafrost.

“Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ∼8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ∼1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.”

So apparently the crisis will only arise when the year round sea ice has retreated by ,more than another 1000 km. Any idea when that will happen?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Try this thought experiment. Put an ice cube in a glass of water at zero degrees and raise the temperature of the water by 2 degrees over 24 hours.
Now do the same thing, but raise the temperature of the water over 2 minutes

Which experiment will leave you with the most ice?

Probably the one over two minutes, but that is not a comparison of today’s climate situation, as with us, the temperature will very likely continue to rise and eventually span a considerable amount of time to melt even more ice and release even more co2/methane from the permafrost.

“Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ∼8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ∼1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.”

So apparently the crisis will only arise when the year round sea ice has retreated by ,more than another 1000 km. Any idea when that will happen?

How long is a piece of string, but we are certainly moving towards it at break-neck speed. Perhaps if I explain the last ice age as I see it, it might help. Please accept that exact dates are just not available and do vary considerably, seemingly based on what kind of research is being done and their zone of interest.

The depth of the last ice age when conditions were much colder than today and there was a land bridge from PNG to Tasmania was around 20,000+ years ago, this ended and things began to warm and sea levels began to rise around 15.000 years ago. By about 10,000 years ago sea levels had returned to what they are today, but they did not stop there and continued to rise another few metres. Within 4,000 years they had reached their maximum height and returned +or- of todays levels (this would take into account the lowest ice volume around 6,500 years ago. Since then sea levels and temperatures have been reasonably stable.

We have now begun an additional period of warming, ON TOP of previous high levels, which by geological time we are doing very rapidly. This upward change has not eventuated in recent global history and is taking us into very uncharted water, which will be nothing like recent ice ages and so comparisons can really only apply to current conditions and will be nothing that future generation will experience.

PermeateFree said:

We have now begun an additional period of warming, ON TOP of previous high levels, which by geological time we are doing very rapidly. This upward change has not eventuated in recent global history and is taking us into very uncharted water, which will be nothing like recent ice ages and so comparisons can really only apply to current conditions and will be nothing that future generation will experience.

Just cherry picking.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

We have now begun an additional period of warming, ON TOP of previous high levels, which by geological time we are doing very rapidly. This upward change has not eventuated in recent global history and is taking us into very uncharted water, which will be nothing like recent ice ages and so comparisons can really only apply to current conditions and will be nothing that future generation will experience.

Just cherry picking.

?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

We have now begun an additional period of warming, ON TOP of previous high levels, which by geological time we are doing very rapidly. This upward change has not eventuated in recent global history and is taking us into very uncharted water, which will be nothing like recent ice ages and so comparisons can really only apply to current conditions and will be nothing that future generation will experience.

Just cherry picking.

?

well you did it too with the upper case.

here am I speaking of cumulative effects in another thread.. don’t mind me, I do see a picture that isn’t written by science but seems to find a lot of support in what is written, in science.

roughbarked said:

here am I speaking of cumulative effects in another thread.. don’t mind me, I do see a picture that isn’t written by science but seems to find a lot of support in what is written, in science.

thanks ……. I think.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

here am I speaking of cumulative effects in another thread.. don’t mind me, I do see a picture that isn’t written by science but seems to find a lot of support in what is written, in science.

thanks ……. I think.

Well we all know I didn’t do enough schooling to actually formulate an argument correctly.

However it could stand to reason that we are actually releasing more greenhouse gases and other activities which all have cumulative effect along with the aging of our solar system, maybe minute changes as the observer suggests. An analogy could be that we have taken up smoking in later life after having lived a reasonably healthy life before that. Anything that was going to kill us will be exacerbated by the toxins.

Arctic science
A glide-path to knowledge

A determined effort to understand the Arctic is going on, in the sea and on the ice
Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition

THE Arctic is called by some the canary in the global-warming coal mine. Like that fated bird, carried in cages by pitmen well into the 20th century, it is sensitive to changes which might otherwise not be obvious. Canaries expired in contact with gases such as carbon monoxide and methane, warning miners to leave the area. The Arctic—or, rather, its sea ice—is similarly expiring as the Earth warms up in response to more of another gas, carbon dioxide.

The area of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice at the height of summer has been shrinking by 11% a decade for the past 35 years. But the details are obscure—because gathering data in the Arctic Ocean is hard. This year, therefore, a systematic approach to that gathering has begun. The Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ) programme, paid for by the United States Navy, is seeding the Beaufort Sea—the part of the ocean north of Alaska—with many sensors.

In March the programme’s researchers laid dozens of devices along a transect running 400km north from the ice’s edge. Some of these instruments are weather stations sitting on the ice’s surface. Others are buried in holes punched through it. These measure the thickness of the icy layer, and also the salinity, temperature, oxygen concentration, organic-matter composition and movement of the seawater beneath. All these sensors beam their data to satellites. The plan is that they will drift with the ice until it melts. Even then, some are designed to float, so they can continue their work.

Floating sensors are not all that is planned, though. At the end of July, the crew of the MIZ’s research vessel, the good ship Ukpik (“snowy owl”, in a local language), began the operation’s next phase by deploying four instrument-laden robots known as Seagliders, which will roam the depths in search of readings.

Seagliders are torpedo-shaped, but do not have conventional motors. Instead, each is fitted with an external oil-filled swim bladder and wings. When the bladder is emptied (by sucking the oil into the glider’s main body) the glider’s buoyancy is reduced. This causes it to sink, and water to flow over its wings, generating forward motion. As the vehicle nears the bottom, the oil is pumped back into the bladder, the wings change their attitude, and it sweeps gently upward—again generating forward motion. In this way, a Seaglider can cover 20km (around a dozen nautical miles) or more a day in a way that uses so little electrical power that its battery should last almost a year.

The Seagliders that MIZ has launched will range back and forth between the open ocean and the water under the ice sheet, following that sheet’s edge as it retreats. This presents a problem, for Seagliders usually navigate by surfacing and taking a fix from the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). At the same time, they upload their data via another set of satellites, the Iridium network. Under the ice, both of these tasks are impossible.

The solution is borrowed from natural denizens of the deep—whales—whose songs travel thousands of kilometres by being contained and refracted within distinct ocean layers. The layers the whales employ are a long way down, but scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, have found a shallower one that serves in a similar way (and also has the bonus of not interfering with cetacean communication). The MIZ’s researchers are using this.

The snowy owl’s wisdom

Among the sensors the scientists placed on the ice in March were a set of eight acoustic navigation beacons. These have base-stations at the surface, which fix their locations using GPS. They then rebroadcast that information from loudspeakers hanging 100 metres down below the ice, in the transmission layer. If a Seaglider can detect two or more beacons while it is travelling through this layer, it can swiftly compute its own position.

This may not always work, because the Seagliders might stray too far from the beacons. In that case, the researchers have a pair of robotic guide dogs to assist. These are called Wave Gliders (pictured at the top of the story). One part of each Wave Glider stays on the surface, generating electricity from solar panels during the Arctic’s 24-hour summer daylight. The other part is an array of hydrofoils suspended four metres underwater. The difference in motion between the waves above and the calm below causes water to move over the hydrofoils and propel the Wave Glider forward up to twice as fast as a Seaglider. Although Wave Gliders broadcast far above the sound layer, and thus have shorter ranges than fixed beacons, they can be programmed to shadow the Seagliders, and keep them within earshot.

For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet. An icebreaker will recover any surviving devices before the ice re-forms, late in September. Two years of analysis will follow, to try to turn the observations into new climate models. With luck, the MIZ’s researchers will thus find out exactly what song the Arctic canary is singing.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21611046-determined-effort-understand-arctic-going-sea-and

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arctic science
A glide-path to knowledge

A determined effort to understand the Arctic is going on, in the sea and on the ice
Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition

THE Arctic is called by some the canary in the global-warming coal mine. Like that fated bird, carried in cages by pitmen well into the 20th century, it is sensitive to changes which might otherwise not be obvious. Canaries expired in contact with gases such as carbon monoxide and methane, warning miners to leave the area. The Arctic—or, rather, its sea ice—is similarly expiring as the Earth warms up in response to more of another gas, carbon dioxide.

……….

For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet. An icebreaker will recover any surviving devices before the ice re-forms, late in September. Two years of analysis will follow, to try to turn the observations into new climate models. With luck, the MIZ’s researchers will thus find out exactly what song the Arctic canary is singing.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21611046-determined-effort-understand-arctic-going-sea-and

I love this approach to science. Assume the cause at the beginning, then gather the evidence to construct models that support your views.

morrie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arctic science
A glide-path to knowledge

A determined effort to understand the Arctic is going on, in the sea and on the ice
Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition

THE Arctic is called by some the canary in the global-warming coal mine. Like that fated bird, carried in cages by pitmen well into the 20th century, it is sensitive to changes which might otherwise not be obvious. Canaries expired in contact with gases such as carbon monoxide and methane, warning miners to leave the area. The Arctic—or, rather, its sea ice—is similarly expiring as the Earth warms up in response to more of another gas, carbon dioxide.

……….

For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet. An icebreaker will recover any surviving devices before the ice re-forms, late in September. Two years of analysis will follow, to try to turn the observations into new climate models. With luck, the MIZ’s researchers will thus find out exactly what song the Arctic canary is singing.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21611046-determined-effort-understand-arctic-going-sea-and

I love this approach to science. Assume the cause at the beginning, then gather the evidence to construct models that support your views.

What cause is that morrie, the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arctic science
A glide-path to knowledge

A determined effort to understand the Arctic is going on, in the sea and on the ice
Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition

THE Arctic is called by some the canary in the global-warming coal mine. Like that fated bird, carried in cages by pitmen well into the 20th century, it is sensitive to changes which might otherwise not be obvious. Canaries expired in contact with gases such as carbon monoxide and methane, warning miners to leave the area. The Arctic—or, rather, its sea ice—is similarly expiring as the Earth warms up in response to more of another gas, carbon dioxide.

……….

For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet. An icebreaker will recover any surviving devices before the ice re-forms, late in September. Two years of analysis will follow, to try to turn the observations into new climate models. With luck, the MIZ’s researchers will thus find out exactly what song the Arctic canary is singing.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21611046-determined-effort-understand-arctic-going-sea-and

I love this approach to science. Assume the cause at the beginning, then gather the evidence to construct models that support your views.

What cause is that morrie, the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting?

Why its carbon dioxide of course!

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arctic science
A glide-path to knowledge

A determined effort to understand the Arctic is going on, in the sea and on the ice
Aug 9th 2014 | From the print edition

THE Arctic is called by some the canary in the global-warming coal mine. Like that fated bird, carried in cages by pitmen well into the 20th century, it is sensitive to changes which might otherwise not be obvious. Canaries expired in contact with gases such as carbon monoxide and methane, warning miners to leave the area. The Arctic—or, rather, its sea ice—is similarly expiring as the Earth warms up in response to more of another gas, carbon dioxide.

……….

For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet. An icebreaker will recover any surviving devices before the ice re-forms, late in September. Two years of analysis will follow, to try to turn the observations into new climate models. With luck, the MIZ’s researchers will thus find out exactly what song the Arctic canary is singing.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21611046-determined-effort-understand-arctic-going-sea-and

I love this approach to science. Assume the cause at the beginning, then gather the evidence to construct models that support your views.

What cause is that morrie, the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting?

The melting is an effect, not a cause.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

I love this approach to science. Assume the cause at the beginning, then gather the evidence to construct models that support your views.

What cause is that morrie, the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting?

The melting is an effect, not a cause.

Or are we the cause?

>>For the next two months the MIZ’s network of gliders, floats, buoys, icebound instruments and weather stations, together with satellites and aerial surveys, will gather the largest quantity of data yet collected on the seasonal melting of the Arctic ice sheet.<<

So if this is the largest quantity yet, will it serve as a baseline because there isn’t a lot to compare it to? This reads as if no-one has done it properly before. Could just be the journalistic presentation.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

What cause is that morrie, the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting?

The melting is an effect, not a cause.

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

The melting is an effect, not a cause.

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

We are a natural cause anyway. We are a product of the planet.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

The melting is an effect, not a cause.

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

No they haven’t, they have been caused by unusual and extreme events, as we are doing now.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

No they haven’t, they have been caused by unusual and extreme events, as we are doing now.

Extreme or unusual, they are completely without influence by mankind and therefore natural.

buffy said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

We are a natural cause anyway. We are a product of the planet.

the black death is natural too

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

No they haven’t, they have been caused by unusual and extreme events, as we are doing now.

Extreme or unusual, they are completely without influence by mankind and therefore natural.

As we are a product of nature, then we would also be natural. so don’t see the point of your argument.

that’s human management mindset for ya

you outsource the problem

like it or not we are the de facto guardians of the planet being top dog and all that mon – ya dig?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

No they haven’t, they have been caused by unusual and extreme events, as we are doing now.

Extreme or unusual, they are completely without influence by mankind and therefore natural.

As we are a product of nature, then we would also be natural. so don’t see the point of your argument.

This could open up a whole line of defence in legal cases. He died of natural causes, your honour. I killed him.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Extreme or unusual, they are completely without influence by mankind and therefore natural.

As we are a product of nature, then we would also be natural. so don’t see the point of your argument.

This could open up a whole line of defence in legal cases. He died of natural causes, your honour. I killed him.

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

As we are a product of nature, then we would also be natural. so don’t see the point of your argument.

This could open up a whole line of defence in legal cases. He died of natural causes, your honour. I killed him.

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

The ice ages, and the inter-glacials are not unusual events, old mate. They might be extreme, but they are very much natural and part and parcel of the planet we live on.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

As we are a product of nature, then we would also be natural. so don’t see the point of your argument.

This could open up a whole line of defence in legal cases. He died of natural causes, your honour. I killed him.

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

I blame it on the boogey

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

This could open up a whole line of defence in legal cases. He died of natural causes, your honour. I killed him.

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

The ice ages, and the inter-glacials are not unusual events, old mate. They might be extreme, but they are very much natural and part and parcel of the planet we live on.

Ice Ages are caused by events, they don’t just happen.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

The ice ages, and the inter-glacials are not unusual events, old mate. They might be extreme, but they are very much natural and part and parcel of the planet we live on.

Ice Ages are caused by events, they don’t just happen.

magic happens

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

Witty Rejoinder said:

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

No wonder there are people like the Observer wandering around, when there are some even worse.

Witty Rejoinder said:

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

ROFL. What do you propose if we are plunged into an ice age? Geo-engineer the atmosphere by digging up all the fossil fuels and limestone and burning them together?

Witty Rejoinder said:

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

I stopped reading at “the abbott government”

morrie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

ROFL. What do you propose if we are plunged into an ice age? Geo-engineer the atmosphere by digging up all the fossil fuels and limestone and burning them together?

Don’t worry morrie, despite what you might hear, another ice age is a very long way away.

breaking bad

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

“The Abbott government’s chief business adviser says too much time has been spent focusing on global warming and as a result Australians are “ill prepared” to deal with the prospect of global cooling.
Maurice Newman, who has been vocal in his climate change scepticism, has attacked governments, including the former Labor government, for pursuing “green gesture politics” by introducing carbon price signals in an opinion piece for the Murdoch-owned News Corp publication The Australian.
He likened the measures to “primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods”.
Mr Newman warns in the article that global peace, energy and food supply are all at risk if the world does indeed cool.”

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-measures-like-primitive-civilisations-offering-up-sacrifices-to-appease-the-gods-says-maurice-newman-20140814-3do0v.html#ixzz3AMHR7OlZ

…

The irony. If global cooling happens we won’t be able to use CO2 to warm the planet because deniers don’t accept it is a greenhouse gas.

ROFL. What do you propose if we are plunged into an ice age? Geo-engineer the atmosphere by digging up all the fossil fuels and limestone and burning them together?

Don’t worry morrie, despite what you might hear, another ice age is a very long way away.

Damn, it could have made for an awesome mining boom.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you are losing it morrie. I blame it on the influence of The_observer (crosses self and says prayer).

The ice ages, and the inter-glacials are not unusual events, old mate. They might be extreme, but they are very much natural and part and parcel of the planet we live on.

Ice Ages are caused by events, they don’t just happen.

LOL. Ok, they are caused by events that just happen.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

The ice ages, and the inter-glacials are not unusual events, old mate. They might be extreme, but they are very much natural and part and parcel of the planet we live on.

Ice Ages are caused by events, they don’t just happen.

LOL. Ok, they are caused by events that just happen.

You are still not right. The movement of tectonic plates change the movement of ocean currents, which inturn and when combined with other events affect the climate around the world to create major changes on an irregular and unpredictable basis. A natural event infers something that happens on a regular and predictable basis. I think there is a difference.

buffy said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Or are we the cause?

Given that we are very evil, there is little doubt that we are the cause.
Mind you, every other ice melt in the history of the world has been due to natural causes.

We are a natural cause anyway. We are a product of the planet.

:) Cannot say otherwise unless we speak Morkish.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Ice Ages are caused by events, they don’t just happen.

LOL. Ok, they are caused by events that just happen.

You are still not right. The movement of tectonic plates change the movement of ocean currents, which inturn and when combined with other events affect the climate around the world to create major changes on an irregular and unpredictable basis. A natural event infers something that happens on a regular and predictable basis. I think there is a difference.

There is no ‘right’. It is purely a matter of interpretation. Was the world before life existed ‘natural’ ? I say it was. In fact I say that the entire universe is ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘influenced by man’. Volcanoes and earthquakes are natural events though they are unpredictable. What else would you call them? Acts of God?

The 303 bus happens along on a regular basis, but it isn’t natural.

PermeateFree said:

A natural event infers something that happens on a regular and predictable basis. I think there is a difference.

Yeah!

Like tornadoes, or volcanic eruptions, or cyclones, or earthquakes.

Just like those..

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

LOL. Ok, they are caused by events that just happen.

You are still not right. The movement of tectonic plates change the movement of ocean currents, which inturn and when combined with other events affect the climate around the world to create major changes on an irregular and unpredictable basis. A natural event infers something that happens on a regular and predictable basis. I think there is a difference.

There is no ‘right’. It is purely a matter of interpretation. Was the world before life existed ‘natural’ ? I say it was. In fact I say that the entire universe is ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘influenced by man’. Volcanoes and earthquakes are natural events though they are unpredictable. What else would you call them? Acts of God?

The 303 bus happens along on a regular basis, but it isn’t natural.

Alright point taken.

Jesus Christ on a bike can you two geniuses pipe the fuck down?

This is a thread for discussing the state of sea ice in the Arctic this northern summer and related topics.

Who is the admin here? Take care of those clowns.

Still on track for this to be a lowish year, but nothing outstanding, probably around 4.9 million sqkm of sea ice at lowest, compared to 6.2 million sq km which is the average minimum from 1981 to 2010. Unlike recent years, it appears that the North Western Passage through the Canadian Aarchipelago will not be cleared this year, while the area north of Russia is much freer of ice than usual.

Admins lol

And so it proved…

Minimum ice extent was 5.0 million sq km, low-ish, lower than last year. Stayed on trend with the Russian half of the Arctic clear, and the American side clogged.

morrie said:

There is plenty of evidence that the artic ice has been building for the last 6000 years.

Surprising, innit?

You should know better.