The vast majority of multi-year ice melts during the winter, not the summer. The period from 1988 to 1996 saw a huge amount of winter MYI lost, as it was blown out into the North Atlantic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuHBPjElHI&feature=player_embedded]
This coincided with a period of very strong ENSO.
It would be nice to have an honest discussion about this, but alarmists are incapable.
but alarmists are incapable…..
I think you can only carry on a conversation about things you understand.
I’d be glad to have an honest conversation about the Arctic. Flat out no cherry picking of data or end points, etc. and allowing actual experienced and knowledgable experts to speak. I guess that’s why I hang out at Neven’s blog. It’s simply the best for sea ice discussions. But you certainly provide a bit of comic relief.
Maslowski says ice free by 2012 or 2013. Heeeessss an xPURT
No, he’s consistently said 2016 +/- 3. You can spin that as “by 2013” if you want to lie by omission. Spinning is as 2012 is a lie both directly and by omission.
Bullshit
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
?Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,? the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
?So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.?
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm*
“Heeeessss an xPURT” Who’s incapable of discussion,again?
Allowing experienced and knowledgable experts to speak . And I suppose you will pick the experts ? I’ve noticed you don’t get very far with your arguments over at WUWT , do you suppose you will do better here ? As far as your data claims go will you be trying to use the manipulated and adjusted data we see coming out of giss and nasa where the alarmist frauds are in control ? No , R. Gates you alarmists have thrown shit at the fan and it is smeared all over you now . Fewer people believing you alarmists everyday . If you want to look at temperature data then look at USCRN , or if you want to look at ice data look at the two new programs for estimating that . But those new and improved methods don’t support the agw scam . And as far as ice in the arctic goes , it melts and it grows at it’s own pace and nothing man can do short of nuclear destruction can change that . If the world as we know it manages to survive all these hotheads and their nuclear toys then twenty years from now or maybe even ten years from now people will look back at you alarmists and wonder how you could be so blind .
You need to change it from melts in the winter to is lost I think Steve are else it is nonsensical. Ice does not melt in winter very much.
Andy
If ice doesn’t melt when it is blown out of the arctic then where is it ?
Lost sounds so much worse and scarier.
Maybe it’s hiding in the deep ocean. If Trenberth can convince people that it gets hotter with depth, anything is possible.
Oh No! Six Thousandths Of One Percent (0.006%) More Of The World’s Ice Melted This Summer!
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/27/oh-no-six-thousandths-of-one-percent-0-006-more-of-the-worlds-ice-melted-this-summer/
Well Global Warming advocates actually seem bright, if you say, end up trying to have an intelligent discussion with animal rights activists. Like AGW activists, if you point out logical or moral problems in their position, they just call you names. 😉
honest discussion according to Steven: He tells us what is happening and what the reasons are (ENSO, sun, random cycles) and we are allowed to nod in agreement.
“Sceptics” prefer to talk about things that we have little data about. (age of sea ice here, but often also conditions in the pre- satelite areas) This allows Steven to make up random explanations. And then he can deny being false by pointing at the lack of data, when it turns out that he had it all wrong all the time. (like with all his posts on arctic sea ice)
It is not Mr Goddard who is changing the past !
New and better data is “changing” some parts of the data that we have about the past.
you might want to spend a few hours looking at how new results changed our look at history. but this concept is obviously foreigne to “sceptics”.
Well sod , you would fit right in with all those other history revisionists who don’t like the truth . If you don’t like the historical facts you just change them to fit your cheap scam . When I say cheap I am not talking about finances either as you agw clowns have wasted billions by promoting your scam as science . And as far as history goes , when future generations ( if we manage to have them ) look back at you alarmist warmists they will revile you for your waste and your deception . You might fake the records that you read but you can’t go back and destroy all of recorded history and those records show that variations and fluctuations and changes have occurred naturally since record keeping began .
Mann changing temp data and we are allowed to nod in agreement. ?
what part of the sea ice data has been changed? please try to be specific!
Funny sod , but I don’t recall mann being accused of manipulating sea ice data . Could you keep on task here ?
This discussion is about sea ice and the arctic. check nthe top of this page!
it is not me, who is changing topics.
sod says:
August 29, 2012 at 9:56 am
This discussion is about sea ice and the arctic. check nthe top of this page!
it is not me, who is changing topics.
So sea ice and temperature are not the same topic .
RobertvdL,
Thin sea ice is more vulernable to warmth (temperature) and storminess than thicker ice. The rapid decadal decline in sea ice extent minima is consistent with the temperature record that shows that the Arctic annual average temperature has risen to its highest level since at least 1880. The long-term decline also demonstrates that the temperature record is not merely an artifact of “manipulation” (a common argument used to try to ignore the reality of ongoing observed warming).
If one wants an honest discussion on Arctic sea ice, that discussion would focus on trying to better understand the reasons for the dramatic decadal decline that is underway and is producing the lowest summer minima in centuries or longer, possible implications, etc. Such a discussion would not be focused on constructing alternate realities that have no basis in fact or diverting discussions onto irrelevant tangents.
sod , this is a sceptical blog and I have noted that it is the sceptics who tolerate dissent and who are the most likely to argue the science rather than the personalities involved . If you want to see mindless agreement them go to the alarmist sites where other opinions are not tolerated . What is not tolerated on sceptical sites is false and missleading data . As to data obtained before the satellite era , it is the best we have and the observations recorded were done by a much more scientific minded and honest group than we are seeing today . Your agenda has blinded you and your pride and arrogance keeps you blind . I have noted that Steven posts much historical data that makes the lies and spin told by the warmists very obvious to anyone who looks at it . History will not be kind to you .
What Steven does is this:
he is posting random news articles and data snippets and in doing so is trying to give the impression that they are representative of the time in question.
We had a really sunny august and i spent an enormous amount of time at the swimming pool. But it would be also easy to link to random articles about rain and bad weather to give the opposite impression. That is exactly what Steven Goddard does.
Ok so the melt around 1938 was nowhere near the current one. Skeptics should take note and denialists should just ignore this fact too:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/similar-melts-from-1938-43.html
The MYI may all go then this winter but I think that new MyI was created over this period also.Sea ice does not last for ever and it is the difference between what is lost and what forms that defines the animation that you show.I have a problem with these definitions of how old ice is could not older ice be underneath younger ice and all we see now is the younger ice because some of the older ice which goes does so in the middle of the icepack.
The period quoted 1988 – 1996 was affected by ‘Dry’ Cycles and ‘Wet’/Normal Periods as follows;
1988 – ‘Dry’ Cycle. 1989 – ‘Wet’/Normal. 1990.25 – ‘Dry’Cycle. 1991 – ‘Wet’/Normal.
1992.50 – ‘Dry’ Cycle. 1993 – ‘Wet’/Normal Period. 1994.75 – ‘Dry’ Cycle.
1995 – ‘Wet’/Normal period. 1996 – ‘Wet’/Normal Period.
The previous equivalent period was 1969 – 1978. The next equivalent period is 2006 – 2014.
Take five months off for US. East Coast ( moving at 30 degrees longitude/month, with the East/West Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.)
These orbital effects are Atmospheric in origin, they cannot be (and are not) ENSO related.
An updated version of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes 1990, (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]