Arctic sea ice coverage back to 'normal' levels

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:52 pm

Or near as damn it - panic over then

Amazing this hasnt made more headlines in fact

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:58 pm

That's because it's one data point.

The 'normal' is the plummeting median.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:04 pm

6roucho wrote:That's because it's one data point.

Spoiler: show

Considering there were extremely alarming predictions about the cap being ice free within a couple of decades, less even, the fact it is now at near normal levels is at the least surprising and could be said by many to prove those alarming predictions were just that - alarmist!

jrp · Post by **jrp** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:08 pm

ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?

Bill or the ice?

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:08 pm

ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?

Measured in Bills?

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:10 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:That's because it's one data point.

Spoiler: show
Considering there were extremely alarming predictions about the cap being ice free within a couple of decades, less even, the fact it is now at near normal levels is at the least surprising and could be said by many to prove those alarming predictions were just that - alarmist!

No, it is (as ASMO alludes to) thin ice. And it's only one data point. A single severe spell might cover a part of the arctic with ice an inch thick for a while, but it'd be meaningless.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:12 pm

guy smiley wrote:
ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
Measured in Bills?

I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm

Sandstorm · Post by **Sandstorm** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:13 pm

6roucho wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
Measured in Bills?
I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm

Not meaningless. It's reflecting back all that evil sunlight and keeping us super-cool.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:14 pm

Sandstorm wrote:
6roucho wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
Measured in Bills?
I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm
Not meaningless. It's reflecting back all that evil sunlight and keeping us super-cool.

But only for a limited time.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:14 pm

Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years

But let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is supposedly warming - the ice coverage is somehow getting inconveniently bigger - and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:16 pm

Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the oce coverage is gettong inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

I believe, Bill... that is caused by accelerated melt forcing ice to flow over a larger area, as has been explained here to you on a number of occasions.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:17 pm

Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:19 pm

guy smiley wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the oce coverage is gettong inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

I believe, Bill... that is caused by accelerated melt forcing ice to flow over a larger area, as has been explained here to you on a number of occasions.

right so the increasing ice coverage in the Antarctic is down to increased heat causing more melt?

even when you warmists are wrong you are right

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Bill wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the oce coverage is gettong inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

I believe, Bill... that is caused by accelerated melt forcing ice to flow over a larger area, as has been explained here to you on a number of occasions.

right so the increasing ice coverage in the Antarctic is down to increased heat causing more melt?

even when you warmists are wrong you are right

Your problem Bill is that you're trying to explain events in terms of a theory.

Everyone else is just describing events.

Science is science.

Except for hairdressers, cab drivers and publicans. Then it's suspicious.

waguser · Post by **waguser** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:24 pm

Bill wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the oce coverage is gettong inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

I believe, Bill... that is caused by accelerated melt forcing ice to flow over a larger area, as has been explained here to you on a number of occasions.

right so the increasing ice coverage in the Antarctic is down to increased heat causing more melt?

even when you warmists are wrong you are right

No,

The science behind global warming is comprehensive, detailed and well researched
meaning that your questions are all reasonably straightforward and answerable.

This isn't being wrong and still being right

It's called having expertise

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:24 pm

Bill wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the oce coverage is gettong inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

I believe, Bill... that is caused by accelerated melt forcing ice to flow over a larger area, as has been explained here to you on a number of occasions.

right so the increasing ice coverage in the Antarctic is down to increased heat causing more melt?

even when you warmists are wrong you are right

Actually Bill, I don't really know the reason. I just thought I'd make something up for the amusement value of it all... you know what I mean?

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:24 pm

6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

so Antarctic sea ice is formed from snowfall?

you learn something new every day - there was me thinking it was just plain old seawater that had frozen

bobbity · Post by **bobbity** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:28 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

so Antarctic sea ice is formed from snowfall?

you learn something new every day - there was me thinking it was just plain old seawater that had frozen

I see where you've gone wrong.

edit: oops

easyray · Post by **easyray** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:29 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

so Antarctic sea ice is formed from snowfall?

you learn something new every day - there was me thinking it was just plain old seawater that had frozen

And there was me thinking that snow was made of water and ice was made of frozen water (even the salty variety when it is cold enough).

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:32 pm

Of course

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

so Antarctic sea ice is formed from snowfall?

you learn something new every day - there was me thinking it was just plain old seawater that had frozen

Well, you might learn things but I somehow doubt it. Icebergs form from snow. Of course you might be excluding icebergs from sea ice but I doubt it, given it would...erm...sink your argument.

slow wing · Post by **slow wing** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:33 pm

Bill missed the other thread so Silver had to do the denialist honours on this...

slow wing wrote:Ted, no, the graph Silver posted is legit. The "15%" cut is reasonable. What Silver is doing is 'cherry-picking' the time to post that graph. He posted it because there was a short-term (~week or so) upward fluctuation that happens from time to time. If there had instead been a downward fluctuation happening now then you can be sure he wouldn't have posted the graph.

Silver is in fact invited to come back and post the updated graph from the same source on 15 September of this year. I am willing to bet it will be well below the 'average' band after the Summer melt! FA and co are however shy about taking that bet.

Thread link - Re: Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane
Bill, will you take that bet? Will you come back to this thread on 15 September and post the updated graph? Because it is going to be embarrassing for either you or me, or at least it should be.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:34 pm

Bill deserves kudos for his complete lack of embarrassment about his lack of information about science.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:35 pm

easyray wrote:
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years - but let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is warming the ice coverage is getting inconveniently bigger and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Well yes actually, as the world warms, more snow falls in the Antarctic. Do try to keep up, maybe go back and get your A level science.

so Antarctic sea ice is formed from snowfall?

you learn something new every day - there was me thinking it was just plain old seawater that had frozen
And there was me thinking that snow was made of water and ice was made of frozen water (even the salty variety when it is cold enough).

Thing is, however it is formed the fact is that after years and years of panic and alarm, Arctic sea coverage levels are running at near normal at the moment

Its the main plank in the warmist argument, the Arctic is always used as the stand out 'proof' in these matters and it seems that the previous much publicised loss of ice may have been cyclical after all rather than influenced by man!

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:37 pm

Bill wrote:Thing is, however it is formed the fact is that after years and years of panic and alarm, Arctic sea coverage levels are running at near normal at the moment

Wrong.

slow wing · Post by **slow wing** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:42 pm

Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years

But let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is supposedly warming - the ice coverage is somehow getting inconveniently bigger - and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count

Ignorance or are you fibbing? The red curve is mostly well below the black dotted curve. See if you can figure out what that means...

Spoiler: show

Bill is probably fibbing...

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:42 pm

BBC article from 2007 - claimed the Arctic could be ice free by 2013 - so many of the alarmists predictions have turned out to be just that - alarmist

Yet people still castigate people like my good self for being sceptical

Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"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."

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:49 pm

What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:54 pm

6roucho wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Which part of us sceptics being bombarded by hundreds of these 'alarming doomsday prediction type reports which never actually happen' down the years which makes us even more sceptical

Dont you get?

The Arctic isnt going to be ice free by 2013 - its was complete alarmist BS - why dont we see articles now explaining why the Arctic at this very moment is back to near normal levels when so may reports previously had stated it was in terminal decline

getrucked · Post by **getrucked** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:56 pm

Of course, one could query why 1979 has been taken as the reference point for satellite-derived sea-ice data. There was robust satellite data prior to 1979, once commonly used by even the IPCC.

Surely it wouldn’t be that 1979 was a ‘peak’ for sea-ice extent and that if you take the data back a decade or so, the sea-ice was not much greater than it is now. That would almost make such loss and then growth cyclical – whoul’d of thought it eh! In truth though, 30 or even 40 years data as proof ? Dear oh dear

And that wonderful ‘its thin ice’ wail from alarmists – I particularly like that one – quick thinking although totally irrelevant! Sea-ice thickness had no measurement facility or data prior to the early 80s – consequently, we have no idea what sea ice extent and age trends were before that! However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that both sea-ice extent and thickness has been exceedingly low in the not too distant past (1920s and 1950s for example).

Ho hum!

slow wing · Post by **slow wing** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:57 pm

slow wing wrote:
Bill wrote:Plus Antarctic ice coverage is at above normal levels and has been for years

But let me guess they have done some incredibly complex measurement to explain why when the world is supposedly warming - the ice coverage is somehow getting inconveniently bigger - and thats probably thinner ice too! so dosnt count
Ignorance or are you fibbing? The red curve is mostly well below the black dotted curve. See if you can figure out what that means...

Spoiler: show

Bill is probably fibbing...

guy smiley · Post by **guy smiley** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:00 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Which part of us sceptics being bombarded by hundreds of these 'alarming doomsday prediction type reports which never actually happen' down the years which makes us even more sceptical

Dont you get?

The Arctic isnt going to be ice free by 2013 - its was complete alarmist BS - why dont we see articles now explaining why the Arctic at this very moment is back to near normal levels when so may reports previously had stated it was in terminal decline

Well, you could start by asking the media outlet concerned why it was misrepresenting data...

after, of course, you analyse the data.

slow wing · Post by **slow wing** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:00 pm

slow wing wrote:Bill missed the other thread so Silver had to do the denialist honours on this...

slow wing wrote:Ted, no, the graph Silver posted is legit. The "15%" cut is reasonable. What Silver is doing is 'cherry-picking' the time to post that graph. He posted it because there was a short-term (~week or so) upward fluctuation that happens from time to time. If there had instead been a downward fluctuation happening now then you can be sure he wouldn't have posted the graph.

Silver is in fact invited to come back and post the updated graph from the same source on 15 September of this year. I am willing to bet it will be well below the 'average' band after the Summer melt! FA and co are however shy about taking that bet.
Thread link - Re: Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane
Bill, will you take that bet? Will you come back to this thread on 15 September and post the updated graph? Because it is going to be embarrassing for either you or me, or at least it should be.

Bill won't take the bet...

getrucked · Post by **getrucked** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:01 pm

Of course, one could query why 1979 has been taken as the reference point for satellite-derived sea-ice data. There was robust satellite data prior to 1979, once commonly used by even the IPCC.

Surely it wouldn’t be that 1979 was a ‘peak’ for sea-ice extent and that if you take the data back a decade or so, the sea-ice was not much greater than it is now. That would almost make such loss and then growth cyclical – whoul’d of thought it eh! In truth though, 30 or even 40 years data as proof ? Dear oh dear

And that wonderful ‘its thin ice’ wail from alarmists – I particularly like that one – quick thinking although totally irrelevant! Sea-ice thickness had no measurement facility or data prior to the early 80s – consequently, we have no idea what sea ice extent and age trends were before that! However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that both sea-ice extent and thickness has been exceedingly low in the not too distant past (1920s and 1950s for example).

Ho hum!

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:03 pm

guy smiley wrote:
Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Which part of us sceptics being bombarded by hundreds of these 'alarming doomsday prediction type reports which never actually happen' down the years which makes us even more sceptical

Dont you get?

The Arctic isnt going to be ice free by 2013 - its was complete alarmist BS - why dont we see articles now explaining why the Arctic at this very moment is back to near normal levels when so may reports previously had stated it was in terminal decline

Well, you could start by asking the media outlet concerned why it was misrepresenting data...

after, of course, you analyse the data.

TBF it was the BBC so could be BS - have a look yourself

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2 ... -con.shtml

slow wing · Post by **slow wing** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:05 pm

Getrucked, can you post the alleged earlier satellite results for us?

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:05 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Which part of us sceptics being bombarded by hundreds of these 'alarming doomsday prediction type reports which never actually happen' down the years which makes us even more sceptical

Dont you get?

The Arctic isnt going to be ice free by 2013 - its was complete alarmist BS - why dont we see articles now explaining why the Arctic at this very moment is back to near normal levels when so may reports previously had stated it was in terminal decline

You sceptics are obsessed by straw men - making up predictions, or swallowing the predictions of an alarmist press, and misrepresenting this as science.

But you don't know what science is. I doubt you've ever seen an academic journal.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:07 pm

getrucked wrote:Surely it wouldn’t be that 1979 was a ‘peak’ for sea-ice extent and that if you take the data back a decade or so, the sea-ice was not much greater than it is now.

Complete gibberish.

6roucho · Post by **6roucho** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:09 pm

If Ikaponthus hadn't claimed to know Getrucked, I'd conclude he was the idiot multi of someone on the warmist side. Maybe he's just Ikaponthus - he has the same style.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:11 pm

getrucked wrote:Of course, one could query why 1979 has been taken as the reference point for satellite-derived sea-ice data. There was robust satellite data prior to 1979, once commonly used by even the IPCC.

Surely it wouldn’t be that 1979 was a ‘peak’ for sea-ice extent and that if you take the data back a decade or so, the sea-ice was not much greater than it is now. That would almost make such loss and then growth cyclical – whoul’d of thought it eh! In truth though, 30 or even 40 years data as proof ? Dear oh dear

And that wonderful ‘its thin ice’ wail from alarmists – I particularly like that one – quick thinking although totally irrelevant! Sea-ice thickness had no measurement facility or data prior to the early 80s – consequently, we have no idea what sea ice extent and age trends were before that! However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that both sea-ice extent and thickness has been exceedingly low in the not too distant past (1920s and 1950s for example).

Ho hum!

That cant be right - Arctic melt that we are seeing at the moment is unprecedented!

Global temperatures are unprecedented!

(lets forget/hide/ignore all the evidence that says it isnt too)

waguser · Post by **waguser** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Bill wrote:
6roucho wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?

Which part of us sceptics being bombarded by hundreds of these 'alarming doomsday prediction type reports which never actually happen' down the years which makes us even more sceptical

Dont you get?

The Arctic isnt going to be ice free by 2013 - its was complete alarmist BS - why dont we see articles now explaining why the Arctic at this very moment is back to near normal levels when so may reports previously had stated it was in terminal decline

Which part of it may take 100 years for the shit to really hit the fan by which time it will be way to late to do anything about it do you not understand?