Arctic Ice Discussion (The Melt)

[keithlucky]

What the Met and the Ippc are shown less ice than 2007 but your Satellites cannot show the active Low Pressure system breaks up ice which then quickly reforms when The Lp moves away that whats took place a few weeks back, ,the facts are World temps are not changing (as stated by the IPPC) .Greenland now is having pretty cold weather now along with parts of North USA now refreeze will accelerate.You can keep talking about global warming taking place but its not true because world Temperatures remain stable.

[knocker]

Can you provide links for this statement as I have been severely reprimanded by a mod for not doing so.

[songster]

Can you provide links for this statement ...

... or at least some grammar. My eyes!

[Gray-Wolf]

It's funny how the whole world of science and Meteorology should be hiding those facts from us K.L.( even to the point of not giving you the opportunity to post the evidence up for all to see?) Maybe it's some kind of conspiracy?

[Methuselah]

They're SST charts Keith, not extent. They were discussed a few pages back, from when Joe B posted them.

Aye, peeps will post anything if they think it might help their cause. Even if it is just someone-else's mistake...

[jethro]

Or it could be a genuine mistake from someone who hasn't had the benefit of a Uni education specialising in Arctic studies, or someone who hasn't the time to spend as much time as some on here, reading and researching every nuance available on the Net.

Is it any wonder so few people join in when they are met with endless animosity?

How about everyone makes the effort to read posts from folk without viewing them through the divisive glasses of for or against AGW.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's like carpentry j' Measure 10 times cut once.

If you're going to post up then read around before you post.

If you look at where the cut and paste came from and google that article you'll find it was debunked within hours of appearing (not the Mr B appologised for his 'mistake'.....like he can't read charts.....).

[Methuselah]

I've no doubt that the original source was a mistake, J. (I'd also expect that Joe B has freely acknowledged it as such.) But how many times is it going to be repeated? It has nothing whatever to do with whether one's arguing 'for' or 'against' AGW...

IMO, it's just laziness? Something we're all guilty of, from time-to-time?

[jethro]

It's like carpentry j' Measure 10 times cut once.

If you're going to post up then read around before you post.

If you look at where the cut and paste came from and google that article you'll find it was debunked within hours of appearing (not the Mr B appologised for his 'mistake'.....like he can't read charts.....).

That depends on whether or not you want an inclusive or exclusive atmosphere in here. You're the main poster who appeals to the lurkers, do you seriously think they'll be tempted to stop lurking and join in if their every effort is ridiculed? Like I said, not everyone has the time or indeed the inclination to spend as much time as you do writing and researching this topic.

A little more tolerance from everyone and a little less animosity could transform this area into a bigger club, personally speaking, I'm more than a little bored with folk playing 'I'm a big fish in a little pond'. Consider how much more interesting this could be for everyone if we all had the benefit of more voices joining in, who knows what we could all learn, none of us know everything.

I've no doubt that the original source was a mistake, J. (I'd also expect that Joe B has freely acknowledged it as such.) But how many times is it going to be repeated? It has nothing whatever to do with whether one's arguing 'for' or 'against' AGW...

IMO, it's just laziness? Something we're all guilty of, from time-to-time?

For or against AGW? You were the one who suggested it was posted to help a cause.

Laziness or not as much time as some?

[Methuselah]

Yes J, 'a' cause...Does it really matter which one? The same point applies either way?

[Interitus]

I have been a lurker of this thread for sometime and I am extremely interested in what is happening in the arctic. One question I keep asking myself is, why does the ice extent in winter stay consistantly high considering all the feed back from warmer sea temperatures?

There has been a great deal of comments on here regarding how the UK will have wetter, stormy summers when the ice has gone in the arctic. What we have to be careful of is not jumping to conclusions as we are also experiencing a solar minimum, and this too could also be adding to our wet summers.

Maximum winter ice extent has fallen though with the last nine years being the lowest recorded in the satellite era - http://nsidc.org/arc...cenews/2012/03/

The fall doesn't appear as dramatic partly because of the way cold fresh surface Arctic ocean water is stratified which limits mixing with warmer saltier Atlantic and Pacific water and also affects the diffusion of heat of sun warmed Arctic water. Even in milder winters many degrees above normal, it is still cold enough to easily form ice on most of this surface layer.

But with much of the icepack made up of this first year ice and a decline in older multi year ice the coverage as a whole is very much thinner than it used to be.

Looking at volume of the ice in total is more significant than seeing a misleading recovery in extent during winter.

Regarding UK weather, of course other factors have to be taken into account but it's worth noting that the global radiative forcing from normal solar variations is much smaller than that from greenhouse gases.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Interitus

[keithlucky]

Can you provide links for this statement as I have been severely reprimanded by a mod for not doing so.

Can you provide links for this statement as I have been severely reprimanded by a mod for not doing so.

Link provided earlier from phil jones a famous climate alarmists Edited September 12, 2012 by keithlucky

[BornFromTheVoid]

That depends on whether or not you want an inclusive or exclusive atmosphere in here. You're the main poster who appeals to the lurkers, do you seriously think they'll be tempted to stop lurking and join in if their every effort is ridiculed? Like I said, not everyone has the time or indeed the inclination to spend as much time as you do writing and researching this topic.

A little more tolerance from everyone and a little less animosity could transform this area into a bigger club, personally speaking, I'm more than a little bored with folk playing 'I'm a big fish in a little pond'. Consider how much more interesting this could be for everyone if we all had the benefit of more voices joining in, who knows what we could all learn, none of us know everything.

For or against AGW? You were the one who suggested it was posted to help a cause.

Laziness or not as much time as some?

I think this area has been growing a lot recently. I've seen plenty of new names posting and appearing at the bottom screen. I've seen the graphs I put up here appearing elsewhere on the net (without crediting the source, of course!)

As for some facts about how the Arctic threads have grown, lets take the last 3 Arctic threads, this one "The Melt", the last one "The Refreeze" and the one before that, "Arctic Ice Discussion". Obviously, the refreeze generates less interest than the melt, but here are some figures for each

The Melt .........168 days open.... 335 views/day.... >1430 replies

The Refreeze...169 days open.... 125 views/day....... 319 replies

Arctic ice ....... 176 days open.... 189 views/day........ 646 replies

Despite the percieved animosity you only seem to point out in one side of the debate, I think the Arctic discussion on netweather is doing quite well!

As for KL's posts, I think we know he likes to copy and paste things from denier blogs, without thinking too much about them. I'm sure if anyone on the "pro-AGW" side of the debate did the same and as often as KL does, the response would have been much more harsh. As it is, posts backed up by science are already frequently dismissed here!

Edited September 12, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[cheeky_monkey]

.Greenland now is having pretty cold weather now along with parts of North USA now refreeze will accelerate.You can keep talking about global warming taking place but its not true because world Temperatures remain stable.

Greenland is always pretty cold...as for the USA i live in Canada which is north of the USA there has been no cold weather around at all...in fact its been a warm/hot summer across most of the North American continent this year...plus the link you provided is so small its unreadable.

[BornFromTheVoid]

A new record low in the IJIS extent data of 3,591,250km2, which is 663,281km2 below the 2007 minimum, and 1,624,411km2 below the mean minimum of the last 10 years.

My hope of an early minimum is fading quickly!

Here's the latest update..

[Interitus]

Link provided earlier from phil jones a famous climate alarmists

It's a quirk of the data range that it shows a very slight decline but it isn't very significant. In fact if the originator had used an actual 15 years of 180 months instead of 181 he would have got a slightly steeper decline of 0.0178 degC / decade instead of the 0.0168 (which was rounded to 0.017). Take a couple of more months off and the decline can steepen to 0.02 degrees/decade but add a couple of months on and the trend is positive. Indeed, the annual trend over the past 15 years shows a slight increase.

But lets accept the premise of a decline in temperature of 0.017 degrees per decade. The average positive temperature anomaly for the 181 months in the graph is 0.414 degC - it would take over 240 years for temperatures to return to the Hadcrut3 average. What ice would be left to recover by that time?

[BornFromTheVoid]

NSIDC has updated, and we have a new 1 day record of 3,421,930km2, and a new 5 day mean record of 3,499,600km2

[jethro]

I think this area has been growing a lot recently. I've seen plenty of new names posting and appearing at the bottom screen. I've seen the graphs I put up here appearing elsewhere on the net (without crediting the source, of course!)

As for some facts about how the Arctic threads have grown, lets take the last 3 Arctic threads, this one "The Melt", the last one "The Refreeze" and the one before that, "Arctic Ice Discussion". Obviously, the refreeze generates less interest than the melt, but here are some figures for each

The Melt .........168 days open.... 335 views/day.... >1430 replies

The Refreeze...169 days open.... 125 views/day....... 319 replies

Arctic ice ....... 176 days open.... 189 views/day........ 646 replies

Despite the percieved animosity you only seem to point out in one side of the debate, I think the Arctic discussion on netweather is doing quite well!

As for KL's posts, I think we know he likes to copy and paste things from denier blogs, without thinking too much about them. I'm sure if anyone on the "pro-AGW" side of the debate did the same and as often as KL does, the response would have been much more harsh. As it is, posts backed up by science are already frequently dismissed here!

I get criticism from both sides of the divide about my efforts to stamp out the division and antagonism, I'm guessing it's because I apply the same rules to both sides.

There's no need for the endless taking of sides. I know I've said it countless times before, so at the risk of boring everyone...There's only one planet, we've all got to work together to create the best possible environment for us all; the future needs unity if the science and the debate are to have any positive outcome. There's little point in any of the science or the debate, if it's not going to influence the future and the way forward. To get as many people as possible, all working towards a more sustainable lifestyle, requires encouragement and inclusion, not criticism and antagonism. Why put people off getting involved? Surely the end result is one less person willing to consider their impact - seems a pointless exercise to me.

[4wd]

It's a quirk of the data range that it shows a very slight decline but it isn't very significant.

Well yes, but the significant thing is it isn't going up at all, never mind as much as predicted.

So the lengthy attempt to dismiss the non-trend rather falls flat IMO.

[jethro]

Yes J, 'a' cause...Does it really matter which one? The same point applies either way?

It matters to me because IMO the time to move on from this two sided, divided down the middle nonsense should by now be long gone. I've been on here for about 6 years now, it's a war that has raged since long before I joined. At what point are folk going to realise it's such a futile stance to take? There is absolutely no need for the division.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It matters to me because IMO the time to move on from this two sided, divided down the middle nonsense should by now be long gone. I've been on here for about 6 years now, it's a war that has raged since long before I joined. At what point are folk going to realise it's such a futile stance to take? There is absolutely no need for the division.

Nobody wants to put others off joining in, and I don't think anyone actually is. The debate can get heated at times, but is mostly quite fair and respectful I think?

The whole AGW debate, rather than being "alarmist" vs "denier", is more often "science" vs "free market economic and political ideals".

As long as a large group of people continue to base their scientific understanding on politics, there will continue to be a clear divide.

In an ideal world, the division would not exists, but it's not an ideal world. I doubt many of the posters want to maintain the divide in the debate, but the divide is just a part of the nature of this issue.

You can call down from your "Berlin wall" middle ground and talk of the futility of the 2 sides arguing endlessly, but it's not going to change a thing. Besides, you're about as middle ground as I Jethro, claiming to be otherwise doesn't make it so!

[jethro]

Nobody wants to put others off joining in, and I don't think anyone actually is. The debate can get heated at times, but is mostly quite fair and respectful I think?

The whole AGW debate, rather than being "alarmist" vs "denier", is more often "science" vs "free market economic and political ideals".

As long as a large group of people continue to base their scientific understanding on politics, there will continue to be a clear divide.

In an ideal world, the division would not exists, but it's not an ideal world. I doubt many of the posters want to maintain the divide in the debate, but the divide is just a part of the nature of this issue.

You can call down from your "Berlin wall" middle ground and talk of the futility of the 2 sides arguing endlessly, but it's not going to change a thing. Besides, you're about as middle ground as I Jethro, claiming to be otherwise doesn't make it so!

Anything can change if there's the will to make it happen. I remember sitting watching the news as the real Berlin wall came down, for years people had said that would never happen, ditto Apartheid, ditto old school Communism.

As for my middle ground - I accept the theory, I question the magnitude of the impact thus far. How much more middle ground do you want?

[Methuselah]

It matters to me because IMO the time to move on from this two sided, divided down the middle nonsense should by now be long gone. I've been on here for about 6 years now, it's a war that has raged since long before I joined. At what point are folk going to realise it's such a futile stance to take? There is absolutely no need for the division.

If it was all left to scientists to sort-out, and all scientists were free of any bias, there would be no divide...But no one (not you, me, scientist or politician) has ever been born who's entirely without a point of view.

But then, if (by some quirk of luck) we did all happen to agree with everything anyone-else says/believes, life would be incredible uninteresting.

I have also been attacked from both sides.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Anything can change if there's the will to make it happen. I remember sitting watching the news as the real Berlin wall came down, for years people had said that would never happen, ditto Apartheid, ditto old school Communism.

As for my middle ground - I accept the theory, I question the magnitude of the impact thus far. How much more middle ground do you want?

I also accept the general theory and question the magnitude of the impact so far and of projected impacts!

I'm sure we all questions aspects of AGW and the influence of sea ice changes to a certain degree. Most of us are simply on a different part of the same spectrum and probably not as far from each other as we sometimes think, but could all claim the middle ground if we so choose.

[barrel1234]

A piece from Piers Corbyn about the arctic this year, jet south means its getting colder. Not sure I agree with that.

Little ice age- I will believe that when I see it- but I'm also not going to rule it out either! Also I don't go along with him saying that we are not sub 2007 on the ice front!!! he does have a very nice print out of the storm that we had in the arctic- so worth viewing just for that alone!

I know piers is pretty 'out there' but I quite like the guy, even if i disagree with most of what he says. However I do think that solar factors have a bigger effect than a lot of people give it credit for.

Crackpot, or genius. I'm taking my usual position on the fence