Artic Ice - just the facts

darkman2

This year and last


http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=66441


Global warming has just been disproven - in the Artic Circle at least. The facts speak for themselves people. Dont be taken in. How much have you heard about this in the last month? Think about it. Now that Artic ice will substantially be improved ahead of the refreeze it is highly likely the average 30 year barrier for ice will be smashed this winter. When are the biased mainstream media going to mention this devastating evidence?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Voodu Child

When are the biased mainstream media going to mention this devastating evidence?

Next Thursday

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

Global warming has just been disproven - in the Artic Circle at least. The facts speak for themselves people.

Excellent, then they don't need your help.

darkman2 wrote: »

When are the biased mainstream media going to mention this devastating evidence?

Devastating? To whom? I don't feel devastated.

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

Excellent, then they don't need your help.

Devastating? To whom? I don't feel devastated.

Devastating to a mainstream media (bbc, rte, cnn etc etc) who refuse to report contrary evidence to their views. Did you see any report on the BBC about this? Unlike the theories you constantly hear about ive just posted facts. Absolute facts which are being ignored. Alot of money involved these days in scare mongering about the climate.

hussey

I thought this was a new brand of ICE

Thread disappoints.

turf

randylonghorn, are all the other 3,290 posts you've made as crap as the one above? like look at it.. its an absolutely shít post.

bad use of sarcasm at an OP who supported his post with links and facts, makes you look like a "know it all" and i think you just posted for the sake of posting.

Pride Fighter

Its called climate change, and the climate has changed.

darkman2

turf wrote: »

randylonghorn, are all the other 3,290 posts you've made as crap as the one above? like look at it.. its an absolutely shít post.

bad use of sarcasm at an OP who supported his post with links and facts, makes you look like a "know it all" and i think you just posted for the sake of posting.

+1 naturally. Fact is fact - you can ignore and listen to 'forcasts' but at the end of the day the facts are as presented. No one can argue against this. It is there for all to see.

monkeyfudge

And from the very same source:

Permafrost Threatened by Rapid Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, NCAR/NSIDC Study Finds

The findings point to a link between rapid sea ice loss and enhanced rate of climate warming, which could penetrate as far as 900 miles inland. In areas where permafrost is already at risk, such as central Alaska, the study suggests that periods of abrupt sea ice loss can lead to rapid soil thaw.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html

turf

while i think randylonghorns post was retared.. i think i will disregard the graph as its unreliable.. "at least 15% of ice" is a misleading figure since the thickness of the ice isn't really taken into account. it could have dropped from 100% to 20%... (assuming that 15% is a reference to thickness)

the graph is interesting tho

darkman2

turf wrote: »

while i think randylonghorns post was retared.. i think i will disregard the graph as its unreliable.. "at least 15% of ice" is a misleading figure since the thickness of the ice isn't really taken into account. it could have dropped from 100% to 20%... (assuming that 15% is a reference to thickness)

the graph is interesting tho

Thickness is illustrated on the first link. It is much improved on last year. The graph is absolutely correct. You must remember that, as appears extremely likely, we will end up well ahead of last year in ice extent then much more ice will become long term when the refreeze starts in September. The Artic is about to rebuild itself. Its a process that canot be stopped on this evidence. Check it next year and it will be up again due simply to refreeze over these coming winter months which I reckon will break records for refreeze and expansion of ice.

darkman2

monkeyfudge wrote: »

And from the very same source:



http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html

Ive just posted a chart that shows Artic Ice is expanding and you typically post a quote saying it is not. The evidence is in front of you:rolleyes: If they want to be hippocrites let them be. The facts are there. They are not disputed.

turf

i've heard other people say the same thing recently.. a 2 hour documentary is needed to clear this up.

turf

darkman2 wrote: »

Thickness is illustrated on the first link. It is much improved on last year. The graph is absolutely correct. You must remember that, as appears extremely likely, we will end up well ahead of last year in ice extent then much more ice will become long term when the refreeze starts in September. The Artic is about to rebuild itself. Its a process that canot be stopped on this evidence. Check it next year and it will be up again due simply to refreeze over these coming winter months which I reckon will break records for refreeze and expansion of ice.

people are gonna start complaining about colder weather.. irony? either way people wont be happy

monkeyfudge

darkman2 wrote: »

Ive just posted a chart that shows Artic Ice is expanding and you typically post a quote saying it is not. The evidence is in front of you:rolleyes: If they want to be hippocrites let them be. The facts are there. They are not disputed.

You posted the graph out of context.

Again from the same organisation who published the graph, here's the text that goes along with it.

Conditions in context

The current pattern of sea ice retreat is noticeably different than last summer, with some areas showing less ice and others showing more. For example, in mid-July 2007, a large area of the southern Beaufort Sea north of Alaska still had ice; this year, it is already ice-free (see Figure 1). in 2007, large areas along the Siberian coast had melted out by mid-July; as of July 16, 2008, the Siberian sector remained largely ice-covered. Although the Siberian area still shows ice, satellite data reveals that the ice is low concentration and thus prone to melting.

randylonghorn

turf wrote: »

randylonghorn, are all the other 3,290 posts you've made as crap as the one above? like look at it.. its an absolutely shít post.

bad use of sarcasm at an OP who supported his post with links and facts, makes you look like a "know it all" and i think you just posted for the sake of posting.

I've read too many of this OP's rants, turf, and read too many rants pro and con climate change from people who grab on to one or two graphs and / or statistics and claim that they "prove" their case.

So yes, I guess sarcasm eventually dripped over from the brimming cup ...

And no, I don't "know it all", I don't claim to, and I occasionally get slightly annoyed with those who claim to do so. In fact, I'm a great believer in looking at all the contested evidence, and slowly and carefully forming my own opinion ... and even then being open to listening and being disproven rather than running around shouting "I'm right, you're wrong! FACT!"

If that's a retarded attitude, so be it ...

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

I've read too many of this OP's rants, turf, and read too many rants pro and con climate change from people who grab on to one or two graphs and / or statistics and claim that they "prove" their case.

So yes, I guess sarcasm eventually dripped over from the brimming cup ...

And no, I don't "know it all", I don't claim to, and I occasionally get slightly annoyed with those who claim to do so. In fact, I'm a great believer in looking at all the contested evidence, and slowly and carefully forming my own opinion ... and even then being open to listening and being disproven rather than running around shouting "I'm right, you're wrong! FACT!"

If that's a retarded attitude, so be it ...

I have given you the facts! They are FACTS! What have you got?

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

I've read too many of this OP's rants, turf, and read too many rants pro and con climate change from people who grab on to one or two graphs and / or statistics and claim that they "prove" their case.

So yes, I guess sarcasm eventually dripped over from the brimming cup ...

And no, I don't "know it all", I don't claim to, and I occasionally get slightly annoyed with those who claim to do so. In fact, I'm a great believer in looking at all the contested evidence, and slowly and carefully forming my own opinion ... and even then being open to listening and being disproven rather than running around shouting "I'm right, you're wrong! FACT!"

If that's a retarded attitude, so be it ...

double post.

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

I have given you the facts! They are FACTS! What have you got?

Common sense, for a start.

You have quoted one small piece of a report, out of context as has already been pointed out to you, and from this you conclude that:

darkman2 wrote: »

The Artic is about to rebuild itself. Its a process that canot be stopped on this evidence.

Surprisingly, the scientists who wrote the report apparently do not agree with you, and even had the temerity to publish it without consulting you.

Actually, remind me darkman2, if you would ... what is your doctorate in? ... meteorology? ...geophysics?

fritzTheCat

Global warming is a matter that is often brought up and discussed with me and my colleagues, as a member of the FES however I find myself repeating the same facts over and over.

For all the studies showing the fluctuating size of the arctic ice sheets, the main fact remains that most of earths ice is contained within the (unreported) ice wall on the circumference of earth.

here's a diagram, rough estimates would put 98% of the earths ice contained within the ice wall.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r137/SamuelLBronkowitz/volivamap.jpg

randylonghorn

Lol! ... he's got a visual aid! It's a FACT! :eek:

Jim

I'm gonna have to see a powerpoint presentation before I believe any of this.

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

Common sense, for a start.

You have quoted one small piece of a report, out of context as has already been pointed out to you, and from this you conclude that:



Surprisingly, the scientists who wrote the report apparently do not agree with you, and even had the temerity to publish it without consulting you.

Actually, remind me darkman2, if you would ... what is your doctorate in? ... meteorology? ...geophysics?

Erm meteorology for years. The scientists dont have to agree with me or you. What I have posted is FACT. Explain why you disapprove please considering you know more then me apparently.

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

Erm meterology for years.

You have a doctorate in meteorology, and yet you can't spell it? :eek:

What ARE our universities coming to?!

EDIT: Oh, wait ... you can, apparently, when you think about it ... or double-check the post above!

darkman2 wrote: »

What I have posted is FACT.

One fact among many, open to interpretation as all facts are.

darkman2 wrote: »

Explain why you disapprove please considering you know more then me apparently.

What I disapprove of is shoddy science, faulty method and biased thinking, and a tendency to roar FACT! in an attempt to hide those deficiencies.

I have yet to be fully convinced of the climate change argument, but you are certainly helping to persuade me to their point of view.

When you can cogently present a well thought out argument, backed up by a wide range of relevant evidence, I will read it with interest.

darkman2

randylonghorn wrote: »

You have a doctorate in meteorology, and yet you can't spell it? :eek:

What ARE our universities coming to?!

EDIT: Oh, wait ... you can, apparently, when you think about it ... or double-check the post above!

One fact among many, open to interpretation as all facts are.

What I disapprove of is shoddy science, faulty method and biased thinking, and a tendency to roar FACT! in an attempt to hide those deficiencies.

I have yet to be fully convinced of the climate change argument, but you are certainly helping to persuade me to their point of view.

When you can cogently present a well thought out argument, backed up by a wide range of relevant evidence, I will read it with interest.

Sorry mate but you must be blind. You see the Artic Ice extent this year to last. You see the graph. Are you denying this?

randylonghorn

darkman2 wrote: »

Sorry mate but you must be blind. You see the Artic Ice extent this year to last. You see the graph. Are you denying this?

I'm denying that it has the significance you claim for it.

No, I'm not blind, but I am tired, so I am now going to do what I should have done in the first place ... ignore you and go to bed!

Here's hoping the "Artic" is in as healthy a state as you claim ...

Wanders_fan

darkman2 wrote: »

Sorry mate but you must be blind. You see the Artic Ice extent this year to last. You see the graph. Are you denying this?

Man your a genius all you say must be true.i mean your looking at a diagram not those acres and acres of ice that the scientists who wrote the report did.
Your basing your whole theory on one year of Ice formation(as far as i can tell),actually no its on 7 months as we're only in july.that can't be accurate. it COULD be a statistical anomaly.I'm not saying whats happening up there cause i'm no expert.There has been a good year of Ice formation but you can't make an assumption on one year.

To give you an extreme example Hitler was TIME magazines "Man of the year" in 1938.I'm sure there was a (daddy)Darkman1 was running round Ranting about Hitler being the greatest leader ever basing it on that one year.

Morale of the story i'll take yours and (daddy)darkman1's FACTs with a pinch of salt and some informed information.;)

beautiation

darkman2 wrote: »

Thickness is illustrated on the first link. It is much improved on last year. The graph is absolutely correct. You must remember that, as appears extremely likely, we will end up well ahead of last year in ice extent then much more ice will become long term when the refreeze starts in September. The Artic is about to rebuild itself. Its a process that canot be stopped on this evidence. Check it next year and it will be up again due simply to refreeze over these coming winter months which I reckon will break records for refreeze and expansion of ice.

Important fact: The arctic sea ice levels are still expected to comfortably be at their second lowest extreme in recorded history by the end of this melting season (2nd to 2006). You have to remember they've been declining consistently for years before this. It's a slight recovery, yes, but it's certainly not the end of global warming I'm afraid. 1 year does not mean very much on its own. The sea ice prognosis is based on a general trend, not a linear progrssion, and there will always be years that buck the average and slow the decline. But the trend is still there for all to see. Very few scientists are seriously saying that arctic sea ice will survive for much longer, it's a question of when not if it disappears.

As for your argument in bold, I find it a bit illogical. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me you're implying that the result of one summer conditions will influence the following winter conditions enough to make the following summer be the same sort as the one before it. If that were the case, then a switch in momentum from net ice loss to net ice gain (or vice versa) would be impossible from one year to the next as the system would continually reinforce itself in one direction. But the system has reversed this year (only temporarily, and not even enough to undo the damage of even one of the many years of loss preceding it), and it can just as easily reverse the other way next year again. Just because there may be a net gain for once does not mean that the ice is in any way more secure and resilient. All this is is a blip. If this were to happen 5 years in a row, then it might mean something.

BigglesMcGee

randylonghorn wrote: »

You have a doctorate in meteorology, and yet you can't spell it? :eek:

oooh here we go. Ranting about spelling mistakes is the last refuge of the defeated.

beautiation

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

oooh here we go. Ranting about spelling mistakes is the last refuge of the defeated.

Whatever about the spelling or his qualifications, the OP is still wrong.

Quazzie

The ice is expanding because they are bracing themselves for the pending arrival ob AVP

m@cc@

darkman2 wrote: »

+1 naturally. Fact is fact - you can ignore and listen to 'forcasts' but at the end of the day the facts are as presented. No one can argue against this. It is there for all to see.

Just like the BBC present 'facts'? Statistics can be used to prove anything. 90% of people know this.

thelordofcheese

beautiation wrote: »

Whatever about the spelling or his qualifications, the OP has a long record of being borderline batshít loco.

I fixed that for you.

Canis Lupus

The op capitalises the word fact.

That pretty much swings the argument in his favour and I would like to read more.

m@cc@

'Artic' should be spelt 'Arctic' - FACT!

bill_ashmount

Is it or isn't it happening? I need to know now.............

kowloon

Enjoy.

Dave!

Hey darkman! I say DARKMAN!

You missed this post:

monkeyfudge wrote: »

You posted the graph out of context.

Again from the same organisation who published the graph, here's the text that goes along with it.

Conditions in context

The current pattern of sea ice retreat is noticeably different than last summer, with some areas showing less ice and others showing more. For example, in mid-July 2007, a large area of the southern Beaufort Sea north of Alaska still had ice; this year, it is already ice-free (see Figure 1). in 2007, large areas along the Siberian coast had melted out by mid-July; as of July 16, 2008, the Siberian sector remained largely ice-covered. Although the Siberian area still shows ice, satellite data reveals that the ice is low concentration and thus prone to melting.

pickarooney

Can we have the swear/caps filter automatically demote FACT written in capitals to "allegedly" in subscript?

thelordofcheese

pickarooney wrote: »

Can we have the swear/caps filter automatically demote FACT written in capitals to "allegedly" in subscript?

This is the best idea ever. allegedly.
Quick, make a thread in wherever it is that we make threads about this sort of thing!

djpbarry

darkman2 wrote: »

Global warming has just been disproven - in the Artic Circle at least. The facts speak for themselves people. Dont be taken in. How much have you heard about this in the last month? Think about it. Now that Artic ice will substantially be improved ahead of the refreeze it is highly likely the average 30 year barrier for ice will be smashed this winter.

Pretty sure you brought this up in another thread. Pretty sure your argument was torn to pieces then too. Methinks you need to have a look at this.

darkman2 wrote: »

Devastating to a mainstream media (bbc, rte, cnn etc etc) who refuse to report contrary evidence to their views. Did you see any report on the BBC about this?

Yes, I did. Today, in fact:

BBC wrote:

The polar north is once again experiencing a rapid ice retreat this year, although many scientists doubt the record minimum extent of 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles) of sea-ice seen in 2007 will be beaten.

Sam Vimes

darkman2 wrote: »

Erm meteorology for years. The scientists dont have to agree with me or you. What I have posted is FACT. Explain why you disapprove please considering you know more then me apparently.

i don't think he's saying that he knows more than you, he's saying that the people who wrote the piece from which you extracted your FACT know more than you since they didn't interpret it the same way you did

andyl222

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Its called climate change, and the climate has changed.

hahahah. great, its no longer global warming because the facts seem contrary to that term, no its 'climate change'. I'm not being pedantic, but hasn't the climate always changed, unless of course the last ice age was just a historical inaccuracy????? Surely people must by now accept that the scare mongering of politicians et al has completely overtaken the actual effects humans are having on our climate, resulting in ridiculous backtracking and fact manipulation.

SoundWave

the proof is here...

djpbarry

andyl222 wrote: »

great, its no longer global warming because the facts seem contrary to that term, no its 'climate change'.

I don't know about that - the average global temperature is still going up. I think the term "climate change" is now being used more often than "global warming" because the latter is overly simplistic. It is highly unlikely that an increase of x degrees Celsius in the average global temperature will result in every single point on the planet increasing by x degrees - the effects will obviously vary from region to region. Climate patterns will change in different ways in different regions and, as such, "global warming" isn't really an appropriate term when referring to a particular region (due to the interpretations of some people) . On a global scale however, "global warming" is still accurate.

togster

OP any plans to move to the artic circle anytime soon? I hear it's hard get the auld wifi out there though.

zuutroy

I love the Arctic ice argument...no one ever remarks that the Anartctic ice is completely unaffected. Anthropogenic climate change is the new Religion. Believe it or be an outcast from society.

Gran Hermano

This thread fails, based on the subject title I was misled
to believe it would be a discussion about frozen trucks
and articulated vehicles.

MOH

zuutroy wrote: »

I love the Arctic ice argument...no one ever remarks that the Anartctic ice is completely unaffected. Anthropogenic climate change is the new Religion. Believe it or be an outcast from society.

You'd kind of expect the Arctic to be affected more, given that over 80% of the population lives in the northern hemisphere.


Also, this

Pepe LeFrits

I propose that the capitalised word 'FACT' be changed to 'FACTOID'. Example:

Instead of - 'Arctic ice is expanding, FACT!'

We have - 'Arctic ice is expanding, FACTOID!'

Much more fun.

djpbarry

zuutroy wrote: »

I love the Arctic ice argument...no one ever remarks that the Anartctic ice is completely unaffected.

Probably because it's not completely unaffected. Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time; the central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C.