
Amazing this hasnt made more headlines in fact
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!6roucho wrote:That's because it's one data point.
Spoiler: show
Bill or the ice?ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
Measured in Bills?ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
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.Bill wrote: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!6roucho wrote:That's because it's one data point.
Spoiler: show
I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.guy smiley wrote:Measured in Bills?ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
Not meaningless. It's reflecting back all that evil sunlight and keeping us super-cool.6roucho wrote:I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.guy smiley wrote:Measured in Bills?ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm
But only for a limited time.Sandstorm wrote:Not meaningless. It's reflecting back all that evil sunlight and keeping us super-cool.6roucho wrote:I believe the correct term for thread thickness is 'denier'.guy smiley wrote:Measured in Bills?ASMO wrote:Is it the same thickness however?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm
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
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 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
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.
Your problem Bill is that you're trying to explain events in terms of a theory.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,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
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
6roucho wrote: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 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
I see where you've gone wrong.Bill wrote:6roucho wrote: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 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
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).Bill wrote:6roucho wrote: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 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
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.Bill wrote:6roucho wrote: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 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
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
Thread link - Re: Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methaneslow 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.
easyray wrote: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).Bill wrote:6roucho wrote: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 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
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
Wrong.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
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...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
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 wrote:What part of 'could' don't you understand?
Bill is probably fibbing...slow wing wrote: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...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
Spoiler: show
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
Bill won't take the bet...slow wing wrote:Bill missed the other thread so Silver had to do the denialist honours on this...
Thread link - Re: Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methaneslow 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.
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.
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.
You sceptics are obsessed by straw men - making up predictions, or swallowing the predictions of an alarmist press, and misrepresenting this as science.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
Complete gibberish.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.
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!
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?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