1 Apr

Global Cooling Confirmed? Arctic Ice Returns to Normal

                                       

[DELETED BY AUTHOR]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, April 1st, 2010 at 9:19 am
| 562 views

24 Responses to Global Cooling Confirmed? Arctic Ice Returns to Normal

  1. Sponge says: 1

    Yeah…that’ll happen.

    Didn’t you know? Cap and Trade is on D’ohBama’s agenda, so that chart doesn’t exist.

    DENIERS!!!! ALL OF YOU!!!! /

    :roll:

    ReplyReply
  2. Maggie says: 3

    http://tinyurl.com/ygtn7wr

    [embed by Mike]

    ReplyReply
  3. Greg says: 4

    I’m not sure annual fluctuations in the area of the ice cover have much significance. As I understand it, it’s the total volume of the permanent multiyear ice cover that matters. This volume has been rapidly declining and continues to do so, despite periodic expansions in the total area of thin surface ice. If the trend continues we’ll soon have only very thin annual ice on the northern pole. Unlike the Antarctic ice, the maximum thickness of the “permanent” Arctic ice cap is only a few meters.

    The University of Colorado National Snow and Ice Data Center has a webpage that displays both an area chart and a thickness chart. The two together provide a more accurate depiction of the situation.

    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

    ReplyReply
  4. @Greg: And that “total volume” of ice for this part of the year is reaching 20 year highs.

    That is significant.

    ReplyReply
  5. johngalt says: 6

    @Mike

    Especially when you consider that pack ice is partially responsible for the “volume” of ice when the packs split and get driven up onto one another by the ocean currents. Larger areas of ice allow for more faults, which in turn allow more of the above and the resultant is a larger volume of ice.

    But all this gets away from the real question about global warming and that is: “Is man responsible for the current global warming trend?” Knowing that there have been much warmer periods during the entire history of man, and that the industrial age really only started just over a hundred years ago, I’d have to say no, man is not responsible.

    ReplyReply
  6. @johngalt: Another interesting aspect of this story is that Watt et. al. believe this latest result shows that wind patterns are the major driving factor in sea ice. But of course the global warming zealots will not accept that any more than they accept the sun’s cyclical nature is responsible for cyclical global cooling and warming.

    ReplyReply
  7. Greg says: 8

    Ah, well. If the unprounceable volcano that’s currently erupting in Iceland triggers a major eruption of Katla, all present climate change debate may become moot.

    ReplyReply
  8. Pingback: Arctic Ice Returns To Normal; How Will Global Warming Alarmist Fearmonger Next? « Start Thinking Right

  9. John ryan says: 9

    Actually Mike what this indicates is that the EXTENT ( not the volume of ice) has reached its winter size. BUT because this is thin ice it will also NOW begin to melt quicker than thick ice. The UA Navy says that it expects within 20 years that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer. “With an eye to the future melting of the Arctic the Navy has recently created the Navy Task Force Climate Change (TFCC) who recently released their Arctic Roadmap in which they acknowledged that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the as the rest of the globe. “http://www.inquisitr.com/48466/us-navy-looks-to-climate-change-and-the-melting-arctic/
    Mike why do you mock and hate our military ?
    And Mike this 20 year “high” that we are reaching would that have anything to do with the past 20 years having much less ice than the long term average ?
    When you talk about the sun’s cyclical nature are you aware that for the last 10+ years the sun has been in a dim low output period ?
    If you do have some important new information about the likelihood of global warming to stop PLEASE CONTACT THE US NAVY !! so they will stop wasting our money thinking that the ice is going to disappear in the summer up there.
    Mike seriously do you believe that the evidence you presented is anything more than underwhelming ?
    And Mr Gailt the question that should be asked is ” are the activities of man having ANY effect at all on our climate”.
    And Mike do you see wind patterns (and their effect on ice formation) as being at all effected by climate (change)

    ReplyReply
  10. John ryan says: 10

    The scientist whose data YOU cite has an entirely different conclusion. From the Alaska Daily Newshttp://www.adn.com/2010/04/01/1208603/growth-in-arctic-sea-ice-a-fluke.html
    Growth in Arctic sea ice a fluke, researcher says
    Published: April 1st, 2010 02:39 PM
    Last Modified: April 1st, 2010 02:40 PM
    “It’s not the end of global warming,” says the man whose research findings set off a wave of hooting among global-warming deniers this week. The Canadian Press reports that a cold snap in one part of the Arctic skewed his findings and put sea ice extent near the long-term average for the first time in years.

    It’s called freaky Arctic weather. “All of the action is in the Bering Sea,” said Mark Serreze. “For the past several weeks, we’ve been under a rather unusual weather pattern, a cold pattern, that’s given us this late spurt in ice growth in the Bering Sea. If you look at the rest of the Arctic Ocean proper, it is very warm.”

    Serreze, a scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., says it’s a mistake to mix up weather and climate.

    “Everyone’s on this now,” sighed Serreze. “What you’re seeing now from the usual suspects is that it’s the end of global warming, and we don’t see it that way.”
    Mike these arguments you make are like a drowning man clutching at straws.

    ReplyReply
  11. Well, now the moonbats have arrived!

    @John ryan: “And Mike do you see wind patterns (and their effect on ice formation) as being at all effected by climate (change)”

    You always have an excuse and never a reason don’t you John Ryan.

    Do you suppose that wind patterns might also be effected by variations in solar output?

    Yes, and thanks for the quote from the “scientist” at NSIDC Boulder. Yeah, what else would be expect.

    Too bad the same result is seen in Norwegian and Danish stations.

    Why is it just weather when the event debunks global warming and proof of global warming when it weather like one year’s bad hurricanes happens?

    You just keep on spinning John Ryan. But don’t blame me when you get dizzy and fall down.

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 12

    Speaking of a “… dim, low output period”…. Wow! Drive by John Ryan was able to get more than a sentence out…. Who woulda thunk it?

    Of course, it doesn’t mean it raised the quality of his contributions an iota. Just more to scroll on by and ignore.

    ReplyReply
  13. now that i always thought tha weather and climate meant the same …that guy said it’s a mistake to mix one and the other,,,it’s getting more confusing, :roll:

    ReplyReply
  14. MIKE in case you don’t know SEE AQUA on12 at whe’re in the very best hands…about GOP election ,bye :roll:

    ReplyReply
  15. Patvann says: 15

    *After reading comments*…Oh Jeebuss

    Mike/Mata/evidence-based humans:

    I’ll have something for the AGW folk tomorrow…For now, insert heavy sigh. I need a day to be convincing, rather than snarky. After-all, this group deserves it.

    But I’m too tired and…well….Mata said something about tequila-chasing the beers the other day, and …I did. After digging ditches for sprinklers all day, and eating a huge plate of pasta.

    For now, let’s just say it takes 3 years for ice-thickness to become “normal”. (ya need to see how much lasts through the summer.) It’s been 2 now. Next year makes or breaks the forecasts done by actual scientists, not the bought ones.. And considering I’ve been right the past 20 years, I’m feeling Ok with having to edjumacate our good friends.

    Emphasis on “good”. ‘Cept for John Ryan. He’s “them.” :-)

    The forecast from the AGW folk 12 years ago, claimed we would be ice-free in the Arctic in 2008 and they were dramatically wrong. Same with last year even after their revisions. This present rate of increase (especially in spring) is unprecedented, except as seen in 1790.

    mmm. natcho’s.

    ReplyReply
  16. @GaffaUK:

    Gaffer….you need to read more carefully.

    The story was published as a joke, not serious news.

    You’ve been PUNKD. Again.

    ReplyReply
  17. GaffaUK says: 18

    @aye

    That’s my point – Fox didn’t realise it was joke and published it!lol

    ReplyReply
  18. @GaffaUK:

    Poor Gaffer….didn’t read the disclaimer at the bottom of the Fox story did you?

    ReplyReply
  19. @GaffaUK: Getting your news from The Daily Show? Why am I not surprised. Obviously that’s where you picked up the Palin sees Russia from her house thing.

    ReplyReply
  20. GaffaUK says: 21

    @Aye

    The disclaimer wasn’t at the bottom of the Fox page. They should of checked that disclaimer to the item they linked to. Dimwits…lol

    ReplyReply
  21. @GaffaUK:

    Really Gaffer?

    The jokes on you bud.

    The jokes on you.

    ReplyReply
  22. GaffaUK says: 23

    @Aye

    So according to you I didn’t realise that the global warming piece was a hoax even though I posted an item from the Daily Show which is all about how Fox fell for the hoax. lol

    I can imagine you must be sour that Fox fell for such a hoax that they posted at the end of March and quickly removed but really just to make stuff up by blaming me is really sad. Instead it would more honest or smart if you admitted yeah Fox fell for it – we’re all human and make mistakes.

    I guess logic isn’t your forte. But keep posting a lie if that makes you feel better.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>