Those two graphs don't seem to agree. One shows a downward trend, the other does not.
Are you on the hooch again tonight? j/k
I only ask because usually you are sharper than that, the first graph is the general trend over years but the second shows the sea ice minimum which occurs about September each year.
IP: Logged
12:20 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I only ask because usually you are sharper than that, the first graph is the general trend over years but the second shows the sea ice minimum which occurs about September each year.
If you look at the signal traces in the lower graph, they aren't "linear". In other words, it doesn't get progressively worse (less ice).
If you look at the signal traces in the lower graph, they aren't "linear". In other words, it doesn't get progressively worse (less ice).
That's correct, the bottom graph shows the same monthy time frame over a 4 year span in which 2007 was lower than the others but all 4 years were below 1979-2000 average (+/- 2). The top graph shows the same 2007 spike downwards (which may be an anomoly) but over the longer span it seems to indicate a downward slope.
In a time frame of 4 years it doesn't have to be linear to show the trend over a longer period of time. I don't think it's necassary for each successive year to get "worse" in sea ice extent or temp to prove that.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-17-2010).]
This is still part of a natural cycle and it is in the process of recovering year over year. Look at the low point and then at 2010.
This is not the first time the ice has retreated. Remember the Franklin Expedition in the 1800's? The water was open then and they could sail a square rigger up there. It closed in and they all died. Others have had a similar problem when they could sail in one year and the following summer not be able to sail out.
This is not Global Warming. It is climatic variations.
Arn
IP: Logged
08:41 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is still part of a natural cycle and it is in the process of recovering year over year. Look at the low point and then at 2010.
This is not the first time the ice has retreated. Remember the Franklin Expedition in the 1800's? The water was open then and they could sail a square rigger up there. It closed in and they all died. Others have had a similar problem when they could sail in one year and the following summer not be able to sail out.
This is not Global Warming. It is climatic variations.
Arn
yup. this is much how I feel about this whole thing. tho - being we do NOT know all the variables which move these cycles, there is potential to upset or influance the cycles. but, I dont see ANY reason to think that human impact is significant enough. tho, it is tough to imagine the impact of the 100 years of accumulation.....
do we not get snow here in Detroit until mid December now because of our own doings, or because this is just how it is? we used to get snow before Thanksgiving.
either way - I am glad there is less snow to shovel. I in fact WELCOME global warming. to me - having the middle east become unihabitable is a blessing - not a curse. global warming may just equal world peace. and - how will the middle east look after a 20' ocean rise? will this swallow such dispicable places like Dubia & Kuwait?
This is still part of a natural cycle and it is in the process of recovering year over year. Look at the low point and then at 2010.
This is not the first time the ice has retreated. Remember the Franklin Expedition in the 1800's? The water was open then and they could sail a square rigger up there. It closed in and they all died. Others have had a similar problem when they could sail in one year and the following summer not be able to sail out.
This is not Global Warming. It is climatic variations.
Arn
Why not trust what the scientists on the site you referenced say about it rather than your conjecture. BTW they have a email list and tel. number on the site if you want to ask them questions or submit your data.
I keep forgetting which arguement you are using, is it climate change due to sun spots or no change at all?
Why not trust what the scientists on the site you referenced say about it rather than your conjecture. BTW they have a email list and tel. number on the site if you want to ask them questions or submit your data.
I keep forgetting which arguement you are using, is it climate change due to sun spots or no change at all?
The site is just reporting the current cycle to October only, not the context. Moreover, you can't have it both ways. Look at the graph. It clearly shows the ice reduction bottomed out in 2007 and has been recovering every year since then. Look at the 2009 season summary to October
It clearly shows the whole summer melt season recovering since 2007. This is a very good indicator of cooling atmosphere. Here is the 2007 survey. This was the year they reported the Northwest Passage had filled in again.
How can you argue that this constitutes Global Warming? It is a 3 year reverse trend.
Remember that this polar ice melt also occurred in the 1800's and the reason the Franklin Expedition was mounted in the first place. It has happened countless times over the millenia, and 20th Century humans did not influence the older events at all. As you allude to, yes, the low sun activity is causing this cooling. The El Nino is causing the warm Pacific Ocean currents to move further north. Additionally, the Gulf Stream flexes. None of this has to do with Carbon Dioxide in the air.
Now are you arguing for arguing's sake, or willing to admit the polar ice cover is recovering and that there is currently no Global Warming?
The site is just reporting the current cycle to October only, not the context. Moreover, you can't have it both ways. Look at the graph. It clearly shows the ice reduction bottomed out in 2007 and has been recovering every year since then. Look at the 2009 season summary to October
It clearly shows the whole summer melt season recovering since 2007. This is a very good indicator of cooling atmosphere. Here is the 2007 survey. This was the year they reported the Northwest Passage had filled in again.
How can you argue that this constitutes Global Warming? It is a 3 year reverse trend.
Remember that this polar ice melt also occurred in the 1800's and the reason the Franklin Expedition was mounted in the first place. It has happened countless times over the millenia, and 20th Century humans did not influence the older events at all. As you allude to, yes, the low sun activity is causing this cooling. The El Nino is causing the warm Pacific Ocean currents to move further north. Additionally, the Gulf Stream flexes. None of this has to do with Carbon Dioxide in the air.
Now are you arguing for arguing's sake, or willing to admit the polar ice cover is recovering and that there is currently no Global Warming?
Arn
The site has no context? Go back and read the reports on the site, there is plenty of good information there on what is happening and what they believe the reasons are.
Willing to admit that the polar ice hasn't decreased after 2007 sure but as the site shows with aid of the graphs it is STILL below the 1979-2000 average. The site explains how 2007 was an anomoly and how it hasn't changed the trend downwards in fact the percentage of downward slope is INCREASING.
Arguing for argument sakes? Not at all. Polar ice recovering since when? 2007? Umm... sure but as the data clearly shows it's still on a decrease for the years since1978 (about 1.5-1.75 MILLION SQ Kilometers)
September 20, 2010, Washington, DC — September 20, 2010, the National Ice Center (NIC) identified the opening of the Northwest Passage through the Arctic. RADARSAT, ENVISAT, and MODIS imagery from the 18-20 of September, 2010, depicts only trace amounts of multi-year ice remaining in the Northwest Passage. Although the satellite imagery shows the area as "open water", conditions such as water on top of the ice, currents, winds and waves may obscure multi-year ice drifting in the area, and hazardous remnants of the older ice may still pose a threat to shipping
IP: Logged
02:11 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Something else to think about in the artic. Its not only the area shown on satellite, but the depth. While the square area shown may be reduced to some extent at different times, added depth makes up for it in other places. ie/ a gallon of water an inch deep may take up a 10 square feet of ground. but in a gallon jug, it takes up 1/2 a square foot of ground. The amount of ground it covers has nothing to do with how much there is . Just call it redistribution of snow/ice.
Something else to think about in the artic. Its not only the area shown on satellite, but the depth. While the square area shown may be reduced to some extent at different times, added depth makes up for it in other places. ie/ a gallon of water an inch deep may take up a 10 square feet of ground. but in a gallon jug, it takes up 1/2 a square foot of ground. The amount of ground it covers has nothing to do with how much there is . Just call it redistribution of snow/ice.
A very good point and that has been taken into account in the studies as well.
The age of the ice is another key descriptor of the state of the sea ice cover, since older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice. Satellite observations can determine the age of the ice by tracking ice parcels over several years. This method has been used to provide a record of ice age since the early 1980s. Figure I3 shows sea ice age derived from tracking ice parcels for the first week of March 1988 (a), 2008 (b), 2009, (c) and 2010 (d). The panels illustrate the substantial loss in the oldest ice types within the Arctic Basin in recent years compared to the late 1980s. Figure I3. Sea ice age derived from drift tracking of ice floes for the first week of March in a) 1988, b) 2008, c), 2009, and d) 2010. The panels illustrate the substantial loss in the oldest ice types within the Arctic Basin in recent years compared to the late 1980s. (Figure courtesy of National Snow and Ice Data Center, J. Maslanik and C. Fowler). Here's a quick video for those who don't like graphs and such (WARNING: there is a pic of a polar bear swimming. )
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-17-2010).]
"A strong atmospheric circulation pattern set up during June helped push the ice edge away from the coast. However, the pattern did not persist through the summer as it did in 2007 (see the Atmosphere Section for more details)."
In other words, it was not Global Warmth, it was a weather pattern on the continent. That weather pattern was a result of El Nino if you recall. There is still no doubt that the ice is on the rebound. The same thing goes for these
"A strong atmospheric circulation pattern set up during June helped push the ice edge away from the coast. However, the pattern did not persist through the summer as it did in 2007 (see the Atmosphere Section for more details)."
In other words, it was not Global Warmth, it was a weather pattern on the continent. That weather pattern was a result of El Nino if you recall. There is still no doubt that the ice is on the rebound. The same thing goes for these
Nope didn't forget it at all, put it in context to the rest of the data and you will see what their findings are but of course I realize you consider them foolish and yourself the real expert. You yet again take one quote(or piece of info) ignore the science and try and get it to fit you own thoughts on the matter. Keep on truckin man, believe whatever you like.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-17-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:07 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The site is just reporting the current cycle to October only, not the context. Moreover, you can't have it both ways. Look at the graph. It clearly shows the ice reduction bottomed out in 2007 and has been recovering every year since then. Arn
In other words, NOT a linear trend downward.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-17-2010).]
Wow!! maybe I'm not explaining it right or you can't seem to interpret the data but as I said the line graph you keep referring to as showing a trend of increasing ice ONLY looks that way as compared to 2007. So yes, since 2007 ice has increased but whn you put it into context for the trend for Ice Extent for the month of October over time since 1978 it's a clear downward trend.
Do you agree or disagree?
You seem to be saying a trend of more ice over one or two years proves a general trend over time which is far from what any science would say. It's equivalent to saying because the Eastern U.S. had a cold winter last year that the earth is cooling. You need to look at the bigger picture. Even people that may have screamed that we would have no ice in the artic again during the 2007 anomoly would be wrong to do so in the eyes of the same scientists I would think.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-17-2010).]
IP: Logged
08:54 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Wow!! maybe I'm not explaining it right or you can't seem to interpret the data but as I said the line graph you keep referring to as showing a trend of increasing ice ONLY looks that way as compared to 2007. So yes, since 2007 ice has increased but whn you put it into context for the trend for Ice Extent for the month of October over time since 1978 it's a clear downward trend.
Do you agree or disagree?
Disagree. The trend is upward from 2007. Unless ice levels drop again, ice seems to be rebounding.
Bigger picture, you say? OK, consider this - we only have good data on ice volume since 1979. What was the ice volume before that? We don't know for sure. We do know that temperatures were going up from 1970 to 1998, and have been flat or falling slightly since 98. Ice seems to follow that trend. But a period of 1979-2010 is a drop in the bucket in the big picture of Earth's climate. However, the warmists keep saying "SEE! SEE! THE ICE IS MELTING!". Funny how trends always favor their narrative, regardless of timescale, but when the evidence DOESN'T support them, it's dismissed.
Disagree. The trend is upward from 2007. Unless ice levels drop again, ice seems to be rebounding.
Bigger picture, you say? OK, consider this - we only have good data on ice volume since 1979. What was the ice volume before that? We don't know for sure. We do know that temperatures were going up from 1970 to 1998, and have been flat or falling slightly since 98. Ice seems to follow that trend. But a period of 1979-2010 is a drop in the bucket in the big picture of Earth's climate. However, the warmists keep saying "SEE! SEE! THE ICE IS MELTING!". Funny how trends always favor their narrative, regardless of timescale, but when the evidence DOESN'T support them, it's dismissed.
Uh huh, very convincing.
I just checked this years data (http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_extent_trends) and besides April and October every month has a lower sea ice extent than last year, so according to your brilliant deductions that would indicate a drop again.
I should state again though that each graph also shows a larger time span and EVERY ONE has a slope downwards showing the actual trend. Ice seems to be rebounding? Sure if you ignore what the science shows but hey why would I expect anything else.
Timescale questions?? Check the reports from the scientific bodies they have lots of good information.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-17-2010).]
Hey don't know if you guys have heard of this movie yet but it should be interesting. It's from the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg.
Has to do with the fear mongering in regards to climate change that some do, which IS in my opinion a valid arguement.
I just checked this years data (http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_extent_trends) and besides April and October every month has a lower sea ice extent than last year, so according to your brilliant deductions that would indicate a drop again.
So this data disagrees with one of the graphs you posted. Wow. Interesting. Let me know when you make up your mind which graph you're going with.
In sea ice news this week, Arctic sea ice continues its inexorable climb toward the summit, to be reached sometime in March 2011. At present the ice growth is tracking just below the rate of 2007, but it should also be pointed out that according to JAXA’s AMSRE plot, we are still slightly ahead of this date last year.
hahaha keep trying man your arguements seem to be falling flat at each attempt. If you read past the headline you would have seen that "Harper government's goal of a 17 per cent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020" instead of the proposed 25%. While I'm not a huge fan of the Harper Government, they do some things well. Not cutting the emissions by the extra 8% is debatable but hey moving in the right direction is a good thing IMO.
In sea ice news this week, Arctic sea ice continues its inexorable climb toward the summit, to be reached sometime in March 2011. At present the ice growth is tracking just below the rate of 2007, but it should also be pointed out that according to JAXA’s AMSRE plot, we are still slightly ahead of this date last year.
Umm.... so your are showing the NCDC graph and quoting a statement about the JAXA one? C'mon now which one would you rather use?
IP: Logged
01:02 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
hahaha keep trying man your arguements seem to be falling flat at each attempt. If you read past the headline you would have seen that "Harper government's goal of a 17 per cent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020" instead of the proposed 25%. While I'm not a huge fan of the Harper Government, they do some things well. Not cutting the emissions by the extra 8% is debatable but hey moving in the right direction is a good thing IMO.
Come on you can do better than that.
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended Tory senators who voted down a climate change bill ahead of an upcoming United Nations meeting on the issue in Mexico."
The bill was killed. What's your point?
IP: Logged
01:07 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
bear doesnot want to see facts that his CORPrat masters do not approve of
both less ice area and thinner ice tooo
''Ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of Arctic sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice extent; unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume. To fill that gap, scientists at the University of Washington have developed regularly updated estimates of ice volume, using a model called the Pan Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).
PIOMAS uses observations and numerical models to make ongoing estimates of changes in sea ice volume. According to PIOMAS, the average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average. The May 2010 ice volume is also 2.5 standard deviations below the 1979 to 2010 linear trend for May (–3,400 cubic kilometers, or -816 cubic miles, per decade).
PIOMAS blends satellite-observed sea ice concentrations into model calculations to estimate sea ice thickness and volume. Comparison with submarine, mooring, and satellite observations help increase the confidence of the model results. More information on the validation methods and results is available on the PIOMAS ice volume Web site.''
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Point is most likely a bill will be passed for a reduction of 17% instead of 25%. Sounds good to me.
World ending? Certainly hope not, in fact I don't believe those who say it is, I trust most of the scientific information and try to drown out (or challenge ) the extreme views from either side. People who say the earth is ending are on about the same level as those that say that nothing is happening IMO.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-18-2010).]
IP: Logged
01:09 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Point is most likely a bill will be passed for a reduction of 17% instead of 25%. Sounds good to me.
But Harper also said that the current bill would kill the Canadian economy. So, does he REALLY think that 25% would kill the economy, but 17% wouldn't?
But Harper also said that the current bill would kill the Canadian economy. So, does he REALLY think that 25% would kill the economy, but 17% wouldn't?
NO idea you'd have to ask him. You are welcome to start a thread about Harpers plan if you'd like.
Or is this just a deflection tactic?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-18-2010).]
IP: Logged
01:32 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Harper is a very prudent man. He also responds in a measured way to what the country's voters want and need.
From the article,
[The legislation called for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. That level is more stringent than the Harper government's goal of a 17 per cent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020, which is in line with the U.S. administration's targets.
The bill requires to reach 1990 levels in just 10 years. That is increases made over 20 years to be cut in 10 years.
That is draconian stuff. That would indeed repress the Canadian economy. Of course there are social activists who forget that the Canadians fund huge numbers of people around the world, and that if the Canadian economy were to follow the American economy downward, those helping programs would be absolutely hit.
The "green" initiatives in Europe have caused allot of economic woe. They are being abandoned or quietly shelved.
The Global Warming enthusiasts like to persuade themselves that going "green" is economically viable, but, you just have to look at Europe and realize that it isn't.
Back to the sea ice for a minute. Remember the Franklin Expedition? There was a whole decade in the 1800's when the Northwest Passage was discovered and explored. That was open water in the summer good enough for wooden sailing ships to head in. It then closed back in. What we are looking at right now, is the start of that process again.
Back to the sea ice for a minute. Remember the Franklin Expedition? There was a whole decade in the 1800's when the Northwest Passage was discovered and explored. That was open water in the summer good enough for wooden sailing ships to head in. It then closed back in. What we are looking at right now, is the start of that process again.
Arn
I remember learning that the Franklin Expedition failed as they got stuck in ice and all died!!!
I also remember reading that The Northwest Passage has been navigated on several occasions in the past but in EVERY instance the expedition required a combination of...
• the use of ice breakers • explosives to blast the ice • physically dragging the vessels overland • the use of multiple vessels with overland treks between them • abandoning the voyage and continuing once the ice melted • taking anything up to 3 years because the vessel frequently became ice-bound
IP: Logged
10:04 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
1905 - Son of the Vikings Navigates the Northwest Passage (The New York Times, December 10, 1905) 1946 - Northwest Passage May Be Navigable for Ordinary Ships (Berkshire Eagle, October 16, 1946) 1954 - U.S. Ships Sail Northwest Passage (The New York Times, August 28, 1954) 1957 - U.S. Cutters Conquer Northwest Passage (The New York Times, September 25, 1957) 1969 - Northwest Passage Opened (The New York Times, September 15, 1969) Media 're-open' North Eastern Passage (The Register)
IP: Logged
10:39 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
I'm not disagreeing that our planets climate changes. Only saying we aren't going to stop it even if we all want to, IMO it happens naturally, and I don't think we are making it worse.
Lets get to the chase. Heres a theory for ya. What this is leading up to is; when it does start changing big time and affecting our lives (and I would think eventually it will), our governments will shut everything down. They might say "told you so" we'd probably have basic marshall law and huge collapse of many things including food and fuel distribution.
Things like wind and solar power are good because they will still be viable when and if this happens. But if these scientists believed what they preach, I think we would all be more focused on disaster preparedness. If burning fossil fuels is so bad, more people should be working from home, traffic jams would be enemy number one, all those cars idling for hours..
(WARNING: there is a pic of a polar bear swimming. 
) the extreme views from either side. People who say the earth is ending are on about the same level as those that say that nothing is happening IMO.
Canadian 
