It is melting so fast that scientists now believe the Arctic could have no ice in the summertime as early as 2013
www.350.org/sites/all/files/science-factsheet-updated2011.pdf
Another possibility is that climate science will be integrity-free by 2013.
I am alarmed.
Color me sceeeeeerrrred!
Yeah! The weather might get sttrrraaaange for good!
Gond
So you still expecting people to write peer reviewed papers saying natural things are happening?
“It is melting so fast that scientists now believe the Arctic could have no ice in the summertime as early as 2013”
And so there is not confusion to those that don’t understand climate alarmism….by no ice, they mean 1,000,000 km2 of ice.
It used to be 6,000,000 km2 just a few years ago, before UHI came and destroyed evvrything ๐
There was a sheet of ice a mile thick where my house now sits.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
Gond doesn’t understand that. He needs a paper in a journal saying ice melts.
O’Doul’s advertises as a non-alcoholic beer (I know) at .4% alcohol content. If we take this summer’s arctic ice low of 4.1 million sq kilometers, and apply the same ‘non’ or ‘free’ definition, we are left with only 16,400 sq kilometers of ice, or about the size of Connecticut, or Swaziland.
Alarmists are going to look very foolish next summer when there is ice as always.
I predict that by 2040, you will be able to bathe year round in the Arctic Ocean. That is a much smarter bet, because it will take 28 years to prove me wrong, not just one.
Denialists will look as good as dead when the Sea Ice Minimum smashes the 2012 records repeatedly.
Gond
Your smugness about making alarming predictions carves it in stone that you are irrational.
It’s fairly clear from the NOAA ice extent that the recovery is continuing. Ip until mid August the ice extent was much higher than 2007 and higher than in 2011. The fact is that the Satellites are not showing the broken up ice. So where there was clear water in 2007 there is now plenty of ice. In the coming seasons this will become solid and you can then expect a consistently higher ice extent to be displayed also by Satellite measurement.
Bob, you may want to look at the latest NIC image: http://nsidc.org/data/masie/. The extent in MASIE is now 4.26. At the same date in 2007 it was 5.01.
That figure is simply misleading
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/new_look/products/ice_extent_graphs/arctic_daily_ice_extent.html
You can also see the ice NOAA is talking about on the Satellite photograph.
http://www.arctic.io/observations/
The fact is there is plenty of ice they’re not counting because it’s broken up. But as a ship you might get stuck in it, which is why the NOAA doesn’t ignore it. Wait a year a two, this ice aint going away and will form the basis of the 2013 ice extent.
Why did you just do that Julienne, compare sea-ice extent by absolute calendar day?
Even the solstices and equinoxes don’t obey our imperfect calendar, why on Earth would something as chaotic as sea-ice?
That is exactly the kind of misleading propaganda I might expect from your boss Serreze or definitely from Romm.
because you cannot compare the current number to the minimum?!? It is still august!!!!
I have seen about 14,000 news stories comparing the current number to the minimum
No Steven, you have NOT seen anything like that.
You might have seen news reports which compare the current numbers with a minimum that was reached already. then you can draw conclusions about us having a new minimum.
you are comparing an annual minimum from the past with a possible minimum from this year. (if ice starts growing tomorrow..)
a comparison between todays number and a dataset that has still a higher minimum is much more complicated. What you want to do, is an apple to oranges comparison.
But please link to a few of those articles that did this!
Only about 14,000 news articles about 2012 breaking the record minimum. Are you daft?
Child, the correct answer is you wait for the minimum and compare to other minimums. That is the only possible scientifically sound idea (assuming the equipment is the same and there is no cheating, etc).
What you said is a non-sequitur. I said nothing about comparing “the current number to the minimum?!?”. The current number cannot be compared to anything, except yesterday or tomorrow, to determine trend direction.
The ice season varies in length year to year. They start and finish on different dates. The days do not line up. Comparing absolute dates from two different timescales is like comparing the age of cats to dogs or to sods.
again:
comparing the current number (new minimum) to the number of a former year (old minimum) makes sense. you are comparing two minimum numbers, IF sea ice starts increasing tomorrow. Or you have been on the safe side of a comparison, if it gets even lower.
the situation is different, if we are doing a comparison with a dataset with a minimum which is still higher. What Julienne did (pointing out that the numbers are close and that at a similar time the older number was higher than it is today) was a viable and quick
way of getting a useful comparison.
Those news reports Steven, were doing the right thing. What you do, is garbage.
Which part of this is confuding to you? “Comparing absolute dates from two different timescales is like comparing the age of cats to dogs or to sods.”
I should have used easier phrasing? Fine: Comparing the same days from differnt years makes as much sense as noting one year has a white Chrostmas and the next does not.
Whay are you trolling and sidetracking the question I specifically asked Julienne: to explain exactly why she would do this, she being an actual scientist and all, allegedly with no agenda. It is what I expect her from her boss Serreze or Romm, who have agendas.
You should stop embarrasing yourself.
ARRRGH! WITHOUT TYPOS …
Which part of this is confusing to you? “Comparing absolute dates from two different timescales is like comparing the age of cats to dogs or to sods.”
I should have used easier phrasing? Fine: Comparing the same days from different years makes as much sense as noting one year has a white Christmas and the next does not.
Why are you trolling and sidetracking the question I specifically asked Julienne: to explain exactly why she would do this, she being an actual scientist and all, allegedly with no agenda. It is what I expect her from her boss Serreze or Romm, who have agendas.
You should stop embarrassing yourself.
The disappeared ice will change weather patterns, of course (how could it not?). People just need to adapt. Do you think climate-change is going to stop here, or speed up?
Gond:
Do you mean, People will have to adapt to changing weather patterns, just like they have always had to? Ice conditions are the result of long term weather patterns, no the cause. But like so many climate related issues the Chicken Little Brigade gets cause and effect A$$ backwards
Yeah, exactly. When was the last time we had to deal with this shit in the Northern Hemisphere? The Little Ice Age I guess.
If memory serves me correctly, every year I have been alive and every year I have read about in history books!
Well, in that case the future will be different. Are you scared now?
ROFLMAO!
Gond
It is stunning how illiterate you are about history and how confidently you speak about the present. You’re just a small alarmist.
Gond
Nope, not scared. The sky isn’t falling—even though you are persistently selling that is is. I’m not buying. Look for people that are as weak minded as you to buy it. You can always find a buyer of junk.
Gond
You finding it hard selling your snake oil?
Steven:
What do you mean, Will be integrity free? I see no evidence i see no evidence it is not already in that condition.
According to Oreskes, only about 3% of climate scientists have any integrity. O’Douls Law says it needs to be .4% to be ‘non’-ethical. ๐
New study suggests that 8,000 years ago ice extent was much lower than today.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/sea-ice-8000-years-ago-less-than-half.html
So much for the “record low” in 2012.
If we had the proper satellites in the 1930’s, 1950’s, the late 19th century, during the MWP and the RWP, we would see that today’s ice extent is far from unprecedented and is part of the natural decadal, multi-decadal, and millennial variation in earth’s climate that has been going on at all levels of CO2 since before Adam and Eve procreated.
Even if we reach 3 million square kilometres of 15% ice extent, or a little more or a little less, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any relationship at all to atmospheric CO2 levels.
Read this quote: “there is no way a rational person can argue that anything unusual is happening today.”
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/27/2312147/pay-no-attention-to-global-warming.html#storylink=cpy
Have a nice day. If the weather is nice where you are, go out and enjoy it, winter is coming soon enough.
Yeah, and 8 billion years ago the North Pole didn’t even exist, so there was no ice. Are you dumb?
And for the “no evidence whatsoever” BS you’re spewing, read this 1st:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051094.shtml
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL051094
Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat
Leading Mars expert Percival Lowell spent decades studying the civilization on Mars through his telescope, and released many detailed maps of their farming activities.
That fact that a scientist convinces himself of something does not mean he isn’t clueless.
CO2 does not melt ice Gond, you know that.
This brings us to what melts ice, temperature would be the most obvious external driver.
So what drives the temperature?
There is an extremely high probability (apparently IPCC speak for a near certainty) that the temperature today is driven by the same external mechanisms that have been driving the temperature, and all its side effects which we currently call climate, since the planet’s beginning of time.
As always on this issue: what was the cause of the ice melt in the 30’s, MWP, what caused the glaciations and what triggered the melt, etc?
Once we fully understand that we will have the answer. The IPCC basically states in its reports: there are so many variables that drive climate it is impossible to predict what will happen next or to fully understand what drives it.
In normal terms: they haven’t got a clue.
Usually called: hedging your bet both ways.
Politicians always want a way out and that sentence does it.
Trenberth said in one of “those” emails: “people will be very disappointed if they knew how little we understand about climate”.
As it was not man made CO2 back then something else has to be the external driver if we are looking for something to blame other then the temperature.
We have a lot more chickens on the planet these days, that could be the cause too.
Steven, if you could read it, you might actually try debunking it based on something else than preconceived stupidity. You must get huge kicks from your anti-science crusade.
I am on anti-criminals-in-science campaign.
You should 1st remove money from politics and then politics from science.
..so how do you know there’s something wrong with that particular article? Did you channel information from angel Moroni or something?
Gond
did you come across any papers proving natural things are happening in the climate? You wanted people to link some to you. You got any?
350.org!!!! LOL Virtually fact free! In fact, it meets the O’Douls Law. ๐
Were you just spewing misunfinformed comments about the null hypothesis? Read the article, it falsifies the null hypothesis that normal variation did it:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051094.shtml
Pretty neat, huh?
Gond my friend, if I hear noises coming from my kitchen at night, that sound exactly like my icemaker, I am not going to lose sleep. I certainly am not going to spend alot of money on exorcists and ghost busters in the morning.
What we are witnessing can be explained by NV, and until someone disproves it, we must go by the precautionary principle and do no harm.
Now, if you can provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes NV as the cause of recent or any global climate changes, I would love to see it.
I am so sorry noone taught you how to work through issues in a logical manner.
I already provided you the reference for the peer-reviewed paper that refutes NV as the cause for the Arctic change. Here it is again, from the quite prestigious Geophysical Review Letters:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051094.shtml
“We find that the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and self-acceleration as an explanation for the observed long-term trend”
Internal variability = NV. This is the paper you were asking for, so please read it, I’m sure some of the real sceptics have access to GRL, while denialists of course don’t.
“Natural variation” is not a viable scientific hypothesis. .
please read a book. It obviously will be the first in your life!
Ooohhhhh, soooooo soooorrry! But according to the IPCC that is just not possible…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
Maybe Dr Gondo missed this part of the BS he has twice waved in my face…
“For examining the validity of this claim, previously IPCC model simulations have been used.”
No observations, models.
Again, I am so sorry noone taught you how to work through issues in a logical manner.
Ha ha, mr. gator was caught with his dick in his hand. Go and read the PEER-REVIEWED paper that debunks NV as the cause of current change. You were asking for one a minute ago, remember? ๐
Gond
you could just as easily have found a paper that shows things you don’t want to believe.
You are selective in what you want to look at. You like to insulate yourself in a fantasy world. You don’t want to make the effort of actually challenging what you believe to prove yourself wrong. You just pick and chose from the global warming alarm table what you want reality to look like.
Gond:
The article is BS! It proves they have an agenda and they belong to the Chicken Little Brigade!
You must be retarded. Are you a creationist too?
The creationists are those that believe in AGW!
โNatural variationโ is not a viable scientific hypothesis.”
Correct, it is the law. If you wish to break it, you must disprove it.
Disproving was done in the GRL paper, now be a good boy and try to read it.
What do say in the internets when shit like this happens?? I believe the correct term is PWNED ๐ ๐
Pleased cite chapter and verse describing the methodology that was used to disprove NV.
I am waiting.
Gond
It is profound how you base all your belief on natural events on one paper. It is absolutely profound. No wonder you have been taken in by “manmade” global warming.
You can probably find peer review work that says Einsteins gravity is wrong and Newton’s is right. But that will mean nothing to you. You will go on and on and on about one paper you think is absolute truth. It is your Bible. All and any papers that show something you don’t find in that paper will be heretical writings to you.
I have already lowered my standards about how smart I thought you were. No need to lower it further—yet.
“Ha ha, mr. gator was caught with his dick in his hand. Go and read the PEER-REVIEWED paper that debunks NV as the cause of current change. You were asking for one a minute ago, remember? ”
Yep, should have waited to post that one brainiac!
nice work gatorade
It seems some confusion remains about the data products, First off the National Ice Center product is exactly the same as the MASIE product, it’s the same data source. The product that is this http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/products_on_demand.html) is the marginal ice zone product and goes a long way to explaining the differences between the passive microwave and the NIC/MASIE products.
Keep in mind that it is difficult to use MASIE for the study of sea ice trends (as Morano and Steve have done) since it is by design a “multisensor analysis” which is the composite of the best data available on any given day, but not consistent over time.
Specifically, in 2007 we had QuikSCAT, but that satellite died in 2009. Right now, (NASA/JPL) and (NIC) are developing the use of the Indian OceanSAT scatterometer, but data flown has been sporadic. If you look at the MASIE products you can see that the red area (8/10th SIC) dropped dramatically from August 23, to August 24. Was this dramatic melt? I think this coincides with the resumption of the OceanSAT feed to NIC. My guess is that without OceanSAT, the NIC analysts were assuming similar ice concentrations as they saw before OceanSAT blinked out to be on the safe side, then corrected the analysis with new data started flowing again
At the rate the science is being proven as settled, Steve Goddard’s blog will be comment-free by 2013.
You mean settled like this?
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
You sure settle easily. Please do not settle any where near me.
Just KIDDING! Tongue in cheek, ironically pointing out the rise in comments lately, especially this one. Predictions for ice free Arctic juxtaposed with predictions of comment-free Goddard blogs ‘n all that.
It’s me, a.k.a. Russell C http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1939-post-11632.html#pid11632 , here and at WUWT, and when I use my primary email address, WordPress automatically goes with the profile I created when Steve Milloy allowed me to start blogging at JunkScience.
No worries, not quitting my day job to become a comedian….
Hey Russell! Glad we settled that. ๐
If Obama Osama wins again this blog will be censured or closed down.
Did you see the news that Obama is going to use Executive Order to put restrictions on the internet?