Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Back on topic!

Here's a graph from the Aug. 11, 2008 report from the NSIDC site RWebb posted previously:



According to this, the extent of Arctic sea ice is greater than last year, but still less than the average of '79 through '00.

Here's an excerpt from this link: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html



So, the melt this year might be greater than last year, but it appears there is and will be more ice this year . . . so far.

As someone stated previously, there's just not enough data to get enough resolution to make any conclusive statements and still far from enough data to pin these "cycles" on humans . . . and still no consensus.

FWIW, according to the NSIDC, Antarctic sea ice is actually trending towards expansion by a small amount:



Looks like "we" have an excellent picture of what is happening, a fairly poor picture of what has happened over long periods of time and just extrapolation and "trends" to see what may happen in the future. Then, on top of this, "we" are left with an array of possible causes for what is happening.

The scientific community remains divided with the "faithful" at both extremes.

FWIW.

2¢ worth from a non-climatologist!

Best,

Based on that info, how long till Miami is under water, like Algore promised?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Rearden

I was simply showing you how much fun it is to play discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

hey, you are the smartest guy on the Right here, I didn't expect mule to know who Steven Goddard is, he'll post anything. Glenn doesn't know who he is, but seems to back his story.

Do you know the author of the original story posted? Can you please post his background, experience, basic bio stuff?

thanks!

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

hey, you are the smartest guy on the Right here, I didn't expect mule to know who Steven Goddard is, he'll post anything. Glenn doesn't know who he is, but seems to back his story.

Do you know the author of the original story posted? Can you please post his background, experience, basic bio stuff?

thanks!

Since you're working with the big brain (IYHO), why don't you?

[Jim Richards]

Mule's authoritative cut & paste sources are unimpeachable.

[island911]

Hey Webb, et al; why are you all so quiet on the growing Antarctic ice mass?

Anyone... anyone... Jim Richards...

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by island911

Anyone... anyone... Jim Richards...

[Mule]

Crickets, i hear crickets.

[island911]

Exactly!

okay class, break out google for "Antarctic ice" to reinforce your Global Warming hearts with Stories of giant broken shelves of ice. -Yay!


...just don't goggle "Antarctic ice volcanism" ...knowledge is dangerous. Play it safe, and stick to stories that make your carbon credit dreams.

[Jim Richards]

I'm all in favor of growing Antartic sea ice. I hear it's the lastest mixology rage.

[john70t]

Is the arguement "global warming doesn't exist", or is the arguement "global warming exists but isn't caused by humans"?
You can't argue both, now.

When offering scientific data(which as we all know is bunk) as evidence of proof, a single point/year taken from a range over a long timeline is insufficient.
Kurt's graph shows a reduction of ice by almost half, within a sort 30 years. That's a huge amount of traditionally unchanging mass gone, and the represent energy absorbed is enormous. This falls far out of spec for the natural yearly freeze-thaw worldwide seasonal cycles.
One could argue that in another 30 years it will triple again, which may or may not prove true, but to not aknowledge an immediate massive pattern shift away from the historical range of normality speaks for itself.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by island911

Exactly!

okay class, break out google for "Antarctic ice" to reinforce your Global Warming hearts with Stories of giant broken shelves of ice. -Yay!


...just don't goggle "Antarctic ice volcanism" ...knowledge is dangerous. Play it safe, and stick to stories that make your carbon credit dreams.

Glenn, so you don't know who Steven Goddard is? Do you buy your prescription drugs from a guy in a pick-up on the side of the road?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by john70t

Is the arguement "global warming doesn't exist", or is the arguement "global warming exists but isn't caused by humans"?
You can't argue both, now.

I think everyone can and will acknowledge that "climate change" exists.

When offering scientific data(which as we all know is bunk) as evidence of proof, a single point/year taken from a range over a long timeline is insufficient.

True.

Kurt's graph shows a reduction of ice by almost half, within a sort 30 years.

30 years is almost 0 in geologic time scales.

That's a huge amount of traditionally unchanging mass gone, and the represent energy absorbed is enormous. This falls far out of spec for the natural yearly freeze-thaw worldwide seasonal cycles.

"Unchanging mass" over what period of time? "Out of spec" based on what period of time?

One could argue that in another 30 years it will triple again, which may or may not prove true, but to not aknowledge an immediate massive pattern shift away from the historical range of normality speaks for itself.

Again, time granularity is an important consideration.

Back to the original point of this thread; there is more ice at the Arctic this year vs. last year and the Antarctic extent is growing, albeit by small amounts. The images posted in the original article showing more ice this year vs. last year in the Arctic are correct (they were from NASA I believe). I'll admit and agree it is almost meaningless by way of the time frame, but so is a snapshot of a hundred or even thousand years or so . . .

Climate change is as real as it ever was. Whether or not humans have anything to do with it is not that big a deal, IMHO. Humans still need to figure out ways to not pollute the planet and ways to create more energy from sustainable and clean sources.

FWIW.

Best,

[Mule]

The point is that the rabid climate alarmists can not prove what they say, and to make such massive chances without proof is foolish.

[Jim Sims]

"Yes. DARPA, DOE, SBC.

When going for a grant, you'll be more successful if you follow the fashion trends."

List some of your grant proposals or if you've been a reviewer, list some redacted proposal titles you've reviewed.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

.
"Unchanging mass" over what period of time? "Out of spec" based on what period of time?

I would suppose since metorlogical data started being collected back in the 1800's. We are just entering the enlightened age of worldwide data(may it be kept safely away from being altered by the next neocon presidency).
It's still only a couple hundred years of observed data, but carbon dating newly exposed frozen fauna would also probably be substantial evdence of historical consistency. I'm not a scientist of course.

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Back to the original point of this thread; there is more ice at the Arctic this year vs. last year and the Antarctic extent is growing, albeit by small amounts. The images posted in the original article showing more ice this year vs. last year in the Arctic are correct (they were from NASA I believe). I'll admit and agree it is almost meaningless by way of the time frame, but so is a snapshot of a hundred or even thousand years or so . . .

That may be so. I'll trust an unaltered photo from space more than someones opinion.
The trade winds and ocean current patterns are believed to be changing as a result, and rapid shifts(the key word here) in systems will quickly change local weather systems, plants, and wildlife. Not very conservative to the old ways.

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Climate change is as real as it ever was. Whether or not humans have anything to do with it is not that big a deal, IMHO. Humans still need to figure out ways to not pollute the planet and ways to create more energy from sustainable and clean sources.

I agree with at least baby steps for a start. Some are vehemently opposed to the concept. I would prefer we adapt as a society rather than break, but time will tell.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"Yes. DARPA, DOE, SBC.

When going for a grant, you'll be more successful if you follow the fashion trends."

List some of your grant proposals or if you've been a reviewer, list some redacted proposal titles you've reviewed.

Why, that is a much better Q than 'why is the ice increasing in the Antartic.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Glenn, so you don't know who Steven Goddard is? Do you buy your prescription drugs from a guy in a pick-up on the side of the road?

blotter acid?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by john70t

Is the argument "global warming doesn't exist", or is the argument "global warming exists but isn't caused by humans"?
You can't argue both, now.

I've shared my opinion several times that global warming may or may not be happening, and I've questioned whether we have enough data to back up the conclusions that have been presented.
I've also strongly opposed the notion that if we are experiencing global warming it is due to man's burning of fuels. I contend that theory is overly arrogant, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated.

IF we are experiencing a significant climate change and IF it is not just a short, natural cycle, then it is much more likely to be caused by that great big ball of fire in the sky or some other natural influence than by humans. We're just not that significant in the big picture.

I believe that telling people we can manipulate earth's climate by changing our consumer habits is ludicrous and intentionally misleading.

[nostatic]

I'm less worried about "climate change" (I agree that one has a tough time making predictions with certainty based on the data and timetables involved), but I do think that we should consider our footprint, and that pollution is a HUGE problem.

imho "climate change" is somewhat of a bs argument on both sides, and both sides have an agenda and/or are just sheep/morons. I'm for "clean" technologies with an eye towards not trashing the environment and actually having potable water for the world.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I'm less worried about "climate change" (I agree that one has a tough time making predictions with certainty based on the data and timetables involved), but I do think that we should consider our footprint, and that pollution is a HUGE problem.

imho "climate change" is somewhat of a bs argument on both sides, and both sides have an agenda and/or are just sheep/morons. I'm for "clean" technologies with an eye towards not trashing the environment and actually having potable water for the world.

Would you include radical changes such as putting our economy at risk by outright refusal to use our own natural resources for energy?