Record Arctic ice low drives urgent global action

Sep 20, 2012
Record Arctic ice low drives urgent global action
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Julienne Stroeve

Today's announcement of a record low for Arctic sea ice extent shows the need for urgent local and global actions, say WWF experts. According to satellite monitoring, the low of 3.41 million square kilometers was reached on September 16. This is a loss of ice nearly twice the size of Alaska, compared to the average minimum from 1979 to 2000.

"This is a critical loss of habitat for a whole sea ice dependent ecosystem and the unique animals that rely on that system," says Martin Sommerkorn of WWF's Global Arctic Programme. "We know the ice is on a continuing downward trajectory. What's shocking is just how quickly it is happening. We need to plan now for an Arctic where the ice is virtually gone for the summer, as that is the situation we will soon be facing – this means conserving the critical habitat that remains."

The sea ice loss should be a gigantic wakeup call for all of us on climate change, says Samantha Smith of WWF's Global Climate and . "Climate change won't stop at the Arctic Circle. Scientists tell us that the rapid loss of is linked to wet summers, severe winters and in the . And other global we're seeing are at least as serious, such as this year's record droughts with their impacts on food production, food prices and hunger."

Scientists have concluded that as much as 70% - 90% of the reduction in sea ice is caused by climate change. "It is a fact that global warming is caused by the unrelenting increase in . Unless we make systematic and dramatic cuts in polluting gases, we will end up with a climate that is unrecognizable, unpredictable, and difficult for natural systems and people, says Smith."

Of deepening concern are recent reports about oil exploration in the Arctic. "It is ironic that the place that is seeing the fastest impacts of climate change is set to become the source of its problems." says Sommerkorn. Smith adds, "We can no longer ignore the warnings about climate change and global warming. We, together with an increasingly concerned public, have to show how the move to 100% renewable energy is possible, practical and essential if we are to get to a cleaner and safer future."

Explore further: EU reaches deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions

More information: Read The Energy Report at
wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footp… nable_energy_report/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

Mar 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Scientists want polar bear protection

Jun 20, 2006

A U.S. climate researcher is leading a team of 30 North American and European scientists in urging the polar bear be listed as a threatened species.

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

2 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mudshark
3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2012
...and sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels and have steadily grown for the 33 years they have been measured.
VendicarD
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2012
Of course. This is what is expected as the continental ice begins to melt and flow rates into the sea increase.

"steadily grown for the 33 years they have been measured" - Mudshark

You did know that didn't you?
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2012
"It is a fact that global warming is caused by the unrelenting increase in greenhouse gases. Unless we make systematic and dramatic cuts in polluting gases, we will end up with a climate that is unrecognizable, unpredictable, and difficult for natural systems and people, says Smith."

More CACA DEL TORO.
PinkElephant
4.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
@Mudshark,
Check the relative magnitudes of Arctic dwindling vs. Antarctic growth, and get back to us with concrete figures. Or if you're too lazy, stop echoing this debunked think-tank talking point and be done with it.

@Vendicar,
That's not the reason. The reason is intensified westerlies (which more efficiently chill the ocean surface) and increased snowfall in the southern ocean due to more storms from up north being deflected south by those intensified winds. The melt-off at some spots on the Antarctic landmass is not the main contributor to the winter sea ice extent.

@ScooterG,
You poor guy, you're just drowning in it, aren't you? Of course, the alternative possibility is that after all it isn't all out there, but rather in there between your ears...
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
@ScooterG,You poor guy, you're just drowning in it, aren't you? Of course, the alternative possibility is that after all it isn't all out there, but rather in there between your ears...


Excellent. Worth repeating :<)
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
Check the relative magnitudes of Arctic dwindling vs. Antarctic growth


Growth of over 1,000,000 sq km at the maximum is indicative of extreme cooling in the winter in Antarctica which coincides with massive ice sheet growth.

On the other hand, summer melting and only a 2% drop in winter sea ice in the Arctic is just a sign that the AMO has caused warming in the Sea Surface Temperatures. The AMO will end soon. Summer Ice will return to record high levels as it always does when the AMO goes negative.

What can't be explained is record maximum ice in the antarctic.

It wasn't supposed to happen. There is no equivalent of the AMO to explain it.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2012
Of course. This is what is expected as the continental ice begins to melt and flow rates into the sea increase.

"steadily grown for the 33 years they have been measured" - Mudshark

You did know that didn't you?
Obviously you don't. You don't even know the difference between shelf ice and sea ice.

And, it's not like heavy shelf ice forms all around the continent.

Vendibot makes up meaningless drivel.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2012
@Vendicar,
That's not the reason. The reason is intensified westerlies (which more efficiently chill the ocean surface) and increased snowfall in the southern ocean due to more storms from up north being deflected south by those intensified winds. The melt-off at some spots on the Antarctic landmass is not the main contributor to the winter sea ice extent.
I applaud your scientific integrity here.

Do you also have the integrity to admit there's been no significant global warming in at least 11, and as much as 15, years?

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2012
Growth of over 1,000,000 sq km at the maximum is indicative of extreme cooling
Wrong; it's indicative of increased westerly winds (which are anthropogenically caused), and increased snow precipitation due to southward deflection of northern storms. In the meantime, the MINIMUM (summer) Antarctic ice extent is practically constant, as opposed to the MINIMUM (summer) Arctic ice extent -- just comparing apples to apples, you know...
What can't be explained is record maximum ice in the antarctic.
Just because a paid shill like you PRETENDS not to be aware of any existing explanations, doesn't mean that it can't be explained. For instance:

http://www.tos.or...ksym.pdf

Took all of 3 minutes with Google:
http://scholar.go..._sdt=0,5

ctd.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2012
The AMO will end soon. Summer Ice will return to record high levels as it always does when the AMO goes negative.
The AMO was negative from mid-1960's through late 1990's:

http://en.wikiped...sent.svg

Yet Arctic sea ice extent has been steadily declining since at least 1979:

http://nsidc.org/...ure3.png

Please kindly try to explain one more time, why your logic leads you to believe that 2 * 2 = 13.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2012
Do you also have the integrity to admit there's been no significant global warming in at least 11, and as much as 15, years?
There's nothing to explain.

First, you don't understand what it means to trend data, as your clearly cherry-picked ranges indicate. For instance, look here:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

All I did above, was to roll back the cherry-picked lower limit of your date ranges by 1 year.

Secondly, AGW is overlaid with natural climatic variability, so there are bound to be periods -- spanning as long as a decade for some of the cycles -- when net global temperature stagnates or even appears to retreat. Simple analogy: assume natural variability is a sinusoidal wave, and AGW is a straight line with positive slope. Add them together, and you get an up-sloping sinusoidal wave.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
Do you also have the integrity to admit there's been no significant global warming in at least 11, and as much as 15, years?
There's nothing to explain.

First, you don't understand what it means to trend data, as your clearly cherry-picked ranges indicate.
It's not cherry-picked. It's simply from testing trends backward in time.

All I did above, was to roll back the cherry-picked lower limit of your date ranges by 1 year.
Obviously to obscure the data I presented.

Secondly, ...there are bound to be periods -- spanning as long as a decade ...when net global temperature stagnates or even appears to retreat.
Then how do you explain the current period of 11-15 years?

Simple analogy: assume natural variability is a sinusoidal wave, and AGW is a straight line with positive slope. Add them together, and you get an up-sloping sinusoidal wave.
When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." - Oscar Wilde

PinkElephant integrity = 0

PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2012
Obviously to obscure the data I presented.
No, to show you that your approach is obviously meaningless and invalid. Here's how the COMPLETE data set looks:

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

There is a downward slope at the top of the red curve (the 5-year average), which is what you're picking up on. There are similar periods of downward slope from late 80's to mid 90's, from late 70's to mid 80's, and from late 40's to the 70's.

Yet, despite those intervals of downward slope, the overall trend is up. That's because climate noise can produce spurious signals on the order of a decade (and when I say "on the order of", it's standard terminology that means "small multiples of".) Therefore, trending climate on time scales that are below the scales of the noise signal is an exercise in futility and incompetence.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
Obviously to obscure the data I presented.
No, to show you that your approach is obviously meaningless and invalid.
This would depend on the question(s) you're trying to answer. My question was: "Are global temperature trends accelerating upward as claimed?" The answer was a profound, "No."

Here's how the COMPLETE data set looks:
Why are you trying so hard to hide the current trend?

There is a downward slope at the top of the red curve (the 5-year average), which is what you're picking up on. There are similar periods of downward slope from late 80's to mid 90's, from late 70's to mid 80's, and from late 40's to the 70's.
Actually, it's been more than 11 years. ...and more than 15 years, with some data sets.

Yet, despite those intervals of downward slope, the overall trend is up.
But that's no guarantee it will continue. And even if it does, so what? The globe has been much warmer in the past, and life flourished. Cooling scares me more.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
Arctic ice appears to be recovering rapidly:

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
Global ice extent is at record lows.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

"Arctic ice appears to be recovering rapidly:" - UbVontard

Who pays you to lie UbVonTard?
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
Arctic ice appears to be recovering rapidly.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html


Arctic ice area is only just back to the last record low in 2011
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
"It's not cherry-picked. It's simply from testing trends backward in time." - UbVonTard

And rejecting the ones that don't fit your claim.

In other words... Cherrypicking.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
"Arctic ice area is only just back to the last record low in 2011" - SteveS

If you look at the minimum of that plot you will see that over the last 30 years the date at which sea ice minimum is reached has advanced by about 1.5 weeks.

So, in addition to more rapid melting in the summer, the melt period has been extended as well.

This of course is exactly what one expects to see as the Arctic ocean warms.

The trend in arctic sea ice volume is particularly telling.

https://docs.goog...oTU90cVE
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy.

"Growth of over 1,000,000 sq km at the maximum is indicative of extreme cooling in the winter in Antarctica " - ParkerTard

It is indicative of more ice entering coastal waters as the continental ice melts and droops, in addition to more snowfall from air that has a higher water content in large part due to increased evaporation from warmer and less salty ocean water.

Less salty due to increased melting continental ice of course.

Why do you continue to lie ParkerTard.

You know we will just continue to expose your dishonesty and idiocy.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
Quite easily. Just as easily now as it was the dozens of other times you have asked the exact same question.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

https://docs.goog...1bUhRQUE

"Then how do you explain the current period of 11-15 years?" - UbVontard

Clearly your mental disease is as advanced as ParkerTards.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
The principle of superposition (addition and subtraction) has been recognized for several thousand years.

But it stumps UbVonTard.

"PinkElephant integrity = 0" - UbVonTard

It is really simple Tard boy. Let me explain....

A plus B = (A plus B)

http://upload.wik...tion.png

It is so simple a 5 year old can understand it.

Why don't you?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
Arctic ice appears to be recovering rapidly.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html


Arctic ice area is only just back to the last record low in 2011
Which is quite an amazing recovery, considering how low it was.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
"It's not cherry-picked. It's simply from testing trends backward in time." - Uba

And rejecting the ones that don't fit your claim.

In other words... Cherrypicking.
It's not cherry picking. It was to test the answer to this question: "Is global warming 'accelerating,' as claimed?" The answer was a profound, "No."

It hasn't been warming at all, for at least 11 years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

ValeriaT
2 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
It hasn't been warming at all, for at least 11 years
It's just the data fishing - the longer interval clearly shows the global trend. But the global warming doesn't mean, that the temperature of atmosphere will rise, until all ice will be melted. If you would heat the ice at the stove, then the temperature will not raise above zero, until most of ice will not get melted. IMO we are in this phase right now.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
It is indicative of more ice entering coastal waters as the continental ice melts and droops, in addition to more snowfall from air that has a higher water content in large part due to increased evaporation from warmer and less salty ocean water.

Less salty due to increased melting continental ice of course.
LOL. Vendibot still doesn't understand the differences between continental, shelf, and sea ice. What a buffoon.

Please, show us a reference to this claim. And please provide a reference which explains how this might happen, without significantly accelerating the sea level rise.

good luck with that.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
The recovery of course is just to the last highest minimum, and is only a very thin surface layer of ice.

"Which is quite an amazing recovery, considering how low it was." - UbVonTard

Minimum ice Volume looks like it will reach zero somewhere between 2018 and 2020. Possibly sooner.

https://docs.goog...oTU90cVE

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
"Then how do you explain the current period of 11-15 years?" - Uba

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

http://www.woodfo....6/trend
Quite easily. Just as easily now as it was the dozens of other times you have asked the exact same question.
And once again, Vendibot pulled its lying data switcheroo, using HadCRUT4 which doesn't even include the last 2 years of data. Even so, it shows no warming for the past 11 years (even without the last two years of data):

http://www.woodfo...92/trend

Poor Vendibot. Even its own data makes a liar out of it.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
"It's not cherry picking." - UbVontard

In your words... I't simply testing trends backward in time until you find one that fits your ideology.

In other words, it is cherry picking.

When all we have to do is look back one year and the slope you claim goes from downward, to upward, we know that you are lying through your teeth and that your claimed trend is meaningless.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Poor Mentally Ill UbVonTard.

He needs to be proven to be a chronic liar, every day.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
And again, 2 years of data aren't going to make UbVonTards reliance on no arctic coverage in his data, go away.

Neither will those two years make his claim of statistical significance to his "trend" any less of a lie.

https://docs.goog...PZEQzbmc

The two sigma error in the slope of his data is ten times larger than the slope he claims.

"Vendibot pulled its lying data switcheroo, using HadCRUT4 which dosn't even include the last 2 years of data." - UbVonTard

But he has been told this 30 or 40 times now, and yet UbVonTard still insists on lying.

I have never encountered a Republican who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. UbVonTard is no exception.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
Even though UbVonTard has been told dozens of times that one becomes the other, he still seems incapable of understanding the fact.

Here is a nice image of continental ice becoming sea ice.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NKnDFtk2ep8/UCnMtTLBlBI/AAAAAAAAEmw/Kp-GeRettO0/s640/tongue.jpg

"LOL. Vendibot still doesn't understand the differences between continental, shelf, and sea ice." - UbVontard

Poor UbVonTard. He seems to have a need to humiliate himself several times a day.

I am happy to do so for him.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
It's just the data fishing
Wrong. It was a Null Hypothesis test. The claim was global warming is accelerating. I just checked the data to see if this was true. This is not true for the period of at least 11 years (and more than 15 years using the dataset used to sound the AGW alarm).

the longer interval clearly shows the global trend.
I haven't claimed is hasn't warmed at all, just not significantly so in the last 11 years.

But the global warming doesn't mean, that the temperature of atmosphere will rise, until all ice will be melted. If you would heat the ice at the stove, then the temperature will not raise above zero, until most of ice will not get melted.
It doesn't work like that. This is a seasonal melt. It's like melting some ice, and refreezing it, then melting some ice, and refreezing it... ad infinitum.

IMO we are in this phase right now.
But you believe in fairy dust (aka Aether) and cold fusion. What makes you think your opinion is valued?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
"It's not cherry picking." - Uba

In your words... I't simply testing trends backward in time until you find one that fits your ideology.

In other words, it is cherry picking.
Obviously, you know nothing about testing the null hypothesis.

When all we have to do is look back one year and the slope you claim goes from downward, to upward, we know that you are lying through your teeth and that your claimed trend is meaningless.
I see you're still having trouble counting to 11. Here, let me help:

11 is the number one more than 10, but one less than 12.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

See? Wasn't that easy?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
And again, 2 years of data aren't going to make UbVonTards reliance on no arctic coverage in his data, go away.
For the hundredth time, HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 use the same polar data.

Neither will those two years make his claim of statistical significance to his "trend" any less of a lie.
Once again, potential trends aren't relevant to fixed datasets. I never claimed it hasn't warmed previously, or that it won't resume warming. I only claimed it hasn't significantly warmed in at least 11 years.

But Vendibot has been told this 30 or 40 times now, and yet it still insists on lying.

Vendibot is a perpetual liar.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012
LOL. Vendibot still doesn't understand the differences between continental, shelf, and sea ice. - Uba
Even though UbVonTard has been told dozens of times that one becomes the other, he still seems incapable of understanding the fact.
So where's the reference I asked for? What's the matter? ...coming up a little short on supporting data?

Get a clue.

VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
The following graphic shows the difference between Hadcrut 3 and Hadcrut4 reporting stations, and clearly indicates the greater number of reporting stations in the northern polar region for HadCrut4.

https://docs.goog...1Z1huTjQ

"For the hundredth time, HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 use the same polar data." - UbVonTard

A statement which is now proven to be a lie.

By UbVonTard's own admission then, he has lied an additional 100 times.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
In his defense at trying to pawn off statistially irrelevant data as a relevant trend, UbVonTard now begins to spout meaningless nonsense.

"Once again, potential trends aren't relevant to fixed datasets." - UbVonTard

This is the kind of nonsense that comes from Children who can neither add or subtract when they are trying to hide their arithmetic errors.

Of course all data sets are fixed at the time of analysis since the data is the input to a series of algebraic equations that presume stasis.

UbVonTard's comments show that he is not only ignorant about basic statistics, but basic algebra as well.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
The following graphic shows the difference between Hadcrut 3 and Hadcrut4 reporting stations, and clearly indicates the greater number of reporting stations in the northern polar region for HadCrut4.
Idiot. Those little boxes represent data interpretations used for the reports, not reporting stations. They both use the exact same data. HadCrut4 just performed additional data mining to the data, and actually modified (tampered) the existing data.

HadCRUT3: "The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM3 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST2 sea-surface temperature dataset."

http://www.metoff...adcrut3/

HadCRUT4: "The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset."

http://www.metoff...adcrut4/

From the CRUTEM4 paper:

"Many station records have had their data replaced..."

http://www.metoff...pted.pdf

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2012
Most of the additinal station data was taken from old USSR and former Soviet Block countries.

And profoundly, the paper asserts the bulk of the additional global warming they found is in Russia, in areas which conveniently weren't included in the original data.

So only parts of the globe which haven't been previously measured are warming? How does that work? I didn't know "global" warming could be so sneaky! LOL.

Besides, it's all moot. Even HadCRUT4 shows no significant global warming in the last 11 years (even without the last 2 years of data):

http://www.woodfo...75/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2012
Of course all data sets are fixed at the time of analysis since the data is the input to a series of algebraic equations that presume stasis.
Which is what I've been saying, moron.

In this case, the trend is fixed, as the data series is fixed. No extrapolations beyond the dataset are being made.

That is, the trend refers only to the datasets presented.

GSwift7
2 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2012
Uba:

I'm going to have to side with Pink on this one. Even if the global avg temp continues to stay level or decline for another 10 years, that doesn't have any negative impact on global warming theory. As you can clearly see in the records, there are cycles of natural variability that are capable of hiding any real trend for at least 30 years (perhaps longer). However, the opposite can also be true. Natural variability is also capable of producing false trends over periods of several decades, so be very cautious when looking for trends in our relatively short period of climate records.

In regard to Vendicar, you should have just ignored him. He's making even less sense than usual. Vendicar, please go do some reading. You obviously don't know much about polar climate. Even Pink corrected you once. I assume he gave up correcting you after you went totally off the rails.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2012
Even though UbVonTard has been told dozens of times that one becomes the other, he still seems incapable of understanding the fact.


No.

When a glacier flows out over the ocean and then breaks off, it is called an ice berg. That is very different than seasonal sea ice, which is actually ocean water that freezes in the winter. If the amount of ice bergs in a given year has any link to temperature, it's probably an inverse relationship, since glaciers flow faster when they get thicker, and that usually happens when it is colder. I doubt there's any statistically significant link between temp and ice bergs at all though. The processes that lead to calving of ice bergs are so slow that events that start the calving process can be decades removed from the calving event.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
GSwift7:
I'm going to have to side with Pink on this one. Even if the global avg temp continues to stay level or decline for another 10 years, that doesn't have any negative impact on global warming theory.
Obviously, you misunderstood the argument. I never said it hasn't previously warmed, nor that it won't warm in the future. I've only said it hasn't significantly warmed in at least 11 years. Pink is denying the clear scientific record. Are you also saying you're a science denier?

The science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

In regard to Vendicar, you should have just ignored him. He's making even less sense than usual. Vendicar, please go do some reading. You obviously don't know much about polar climate. Even Pink corrected you once.
LOL.

I would ignore it, but too many posters seem to feel it posts from authority.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
Even though UbVonTard has been told dozens of times that one becomes the other, he still seems incapable of understanding the fact.


No.

When a glacier flows out over the ocean and then breaks off, it is called an ice berg. That is very different than seasonal sea ice, which is actually ocean water that freezes in the winter. If the amount of ice bergs in a given year has any link to temperature, it's probably an inverse relationship, since glaciers flow faster when they get thicker, and that usually happens when it is colder. I doubt there's any statistically significant link between temp and ice bergs at all though. The processes that lead to calving of ice bergs are so slow that events that start the calving process can be decades removed from the calving event.
There is one exception. Icebergs can freeze within the sea ice and become part of the "pack ice."

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2012
IMO the risk of global nuclear way is way more urgent, than the fight against global warming. Both problems can be solved with urgent research and implementation of cold fusion - with nothing else.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2012
UbVonTard is lying of course. Surprise.. Surprise.. Everything he says is a lie, pretty much.

"Idiot. Those little boxes represent data interpretations used for the reports, not reporting stations." - UbVonTard

The "little boxes" are areas for which there is data used in the temperature reconstruction.

As the following image shows, there are many more gridpoints in the Polar regions in HadCrut4 than there is in HadCrut3. Most from Northern Russia.

https://docs.goog...1Z1huTjQ

"... the new CRUTEM4 data set differ slightly from their CRUTEM3 equivalent. The inclusion of much additional data from the Arctic (particularly the Russian Arctic) has led to estimates for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) being warmer by about 0.1°C for the years since 2001." - Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010 - JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D05127, 29 PP., 2012
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
Which of course is another lie from UbVonTard.

He is compounding his perpetual stream of lies by lying about his chronic lying.

"I haven't claimed is hasn't warmed at all, just not significantly so in the last 11 years." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard is a perpetual liar. Here is some of what he has said.

"Even the most biased temperature index shows a gradual temperature decline" - UbVonTard

"temperatures have been trending downwards:" - UbVonTard

"The widely publicized scientifically accumulated data I'm using clearly shows global cooling for the last 10 years."
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
It is quite telling that UbVonTard presents the following graph

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

And claims it represents cooling.

He is a congenital liar.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
Actually you said the exact opposite, and are now lying about it.

Lying is your way of life.

"Which is what I've been saying, moron." - UbVontard

Which is entirely pointles since the slope you claim in the dataset has no statistical validity.

"No extrapolations beyond the dataset are being made." - UbVonTard

Yet you insist on posting statistically invalid statements even though they have been repeatedly exposed as a lie.

Clearly you are mentally diseased.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2012
And again UbVonTard posts the following graph and claims it does not show warming.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

He isn't even capable of interpreting a simple graph.

Mentally Diseased.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
IMO the risk of global nuclear way is way more urgent, than the fight against global warming. Both problems can be solved with urgent research and implementation of cold fusion - with nothing else.
Sure, and then we can open a spacetime rift and tunnel through the fairy dust (sorry, I meant Aether). In an instant, we can go anywhere we want to. Heck, we can go any-when we want to, too. In fact, I just returned from an expedition to the 31st century. Global warming has turned the earth into a giant sauna. It's the most popular spa this side of the Sombrero Galaxy (an excellent taco joint, if ever there was one!). I just spent three weeks in Vostok City, Antarctica. The mud baths are awesome!

Of course there's the problem of the runaway cold fusion experiment. Luckily, it's totally cool. In fact, it's so cool they've built a rave joint around it and the light effects from the reaction are better than any strobe show put on by any fusion jam anywhere! Party on dudess!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
The "little boxes" are areas for which there is data used in the temperature reconstruction.
Hey, you're the one who said the little boxes indicate reporting stations.

Here is some of what he has said.

"Even the most biased temperature index shows a gradual temperature decline"
Which is true in the original context:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

"temperatures have been trending downwards."
this is taken out of context. Here's the original context:

"So? All you're doing is proving my point. There's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years. I never claimed it didn't warm previously.

However, temperatures have been trending downwards:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend "

Poor Vendibot is exposed for the perpetual liar, once again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
It is quite telling that UbVonTard presents the following graph

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

And claims it represents cooling.

He is a congenital liar.
And there goes the Vendibot, pulling the lying data switcheroo, once again.

Are lies all it has?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
And again UbVonTard posts the following graph and claims it does not show warming.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

He isn't even capable of interpreting a simple graph.

Mentally Diseased.
The Vendibot can't even tell a decent lie. It switches the data, accuses me of presenting it, and calls me a liar, proving to everyone it is the liar.

Vendibot: Why can't you honestly just comment on the data I present, as I presented it? Is the data so bad for your argument you simply can't face up to it?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
Vendibot:

Seriously. Why do you feel the need to switch out the data? Is this how science works? You don't like the data, so you deny it and cover it up?

Vendibot plus data = lies.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
Vendibot:

Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period? Has the world significantly warmed during this period? If so, how much?

VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
"Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period?" - UbVonTard

The Computed trend is between -0.187'C to 0.213'C (per decade) with 97 percent confidence.

You have been told this in various ways more than 2 dozen times.

You are incapable of learning, and mentally diseased. See a Psychiatrist.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2012
"Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period?" - UbVonTard

The Computed trend is between -0.187'C to 0.213'C (per decade) with 97 percent confidence.

You have been told this in various ways more than 2 dozen times.
You're not answering the questions I asked. I didn't ask about confidence intervals and the like. I asked, "Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period? Has the world significantly warmed during this period? If so, how much?"

Please, try again.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
The trend (per decade) from earlier years is as follows

2000 0.08'C plus or minus 0.188'C
1999 0.126'C plus or minus 0.17'C
1998 0.082'C plus or minus 0.158'C
1997 0.093'C plus or minus 0.141'C
1996 0.123'C plus or minus 0.13'C
1995 0.124'C plus or minus 0.119'C
1994 0.148'C plus or minus 0.111'C
1993 0.179'C plus or minus 0.106'C
1992 0.199'C plus or minus 0.102'C
1991 0.184'C plus or minus 0.095'C
1990 0.169'C plus or minus 0.089'C

This is the third time UbVonTard has been presented with this chart.

He is incapable of learning.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
UbVonTard is upset that changing his start date by 0.5 years changes the slope of his trend from negative to positive.

If he wasn't retarded, then he would realize that this indicates that his claimed trend is not robust, and not statistically relevant.

In fact the two sigma error in his claimed trend is ten times larger than the trend he claims.

"Why do you feel the need to switch out the data? Is this how science works?" - UbVonTard

Filth.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
it is hard to get more Tardly than UbVonTardlie.

Witness the idiot in action....

---
"Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period?" - UbVonTard

"The Computed trend is between -0.187'C to 0.213'C (per decade) with 97 percent confidence." - Vendicar

UbVonTard's response...

"You're not answering the questions I asked." - UbVonTard
---

A fine example of UbVonTard's mental disorder.

VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
The idiot just can't accept that the statistical error in his pathetically short time series swamps his claimed signal.

"I didn't ask about confidence intervals and the like. I asked, " - UbVonTard

He is statistically, and scientifically illiterate.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2012
And once again UbVonTard presents cherry picked data.

Reality is quite different.

http://www.woodfo...0/trend"

He is mentally diseased of course.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2012
I've only said it hasn't significantly warmed in at least 11 years. Pink is denying the clear scientific record. Are you also saying you're a science denier?


You are so close to understanding, but just not quite there. Pink and I are both trying to tell you that it is impossible to know if it has warmed in the last 15 years or not. It may have either warmed, cooled or stayed the same. The combination of things like AMO, PDO, ENSO, and AO can easily hide the real trend behind them. You need to wait unitl those cycles all come around to their next full cycle and then compare with the current period. Actually, you need to wait until they all go through several cycles, but we just don't have records that go back that far, since we just discovered those cycles in the past 15 years.

Most people don't understand how much we have learned recently, or how much of this is still totally new to us. We are just learning to walk in climate science.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2012
Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period? Has the world significantly warmed during this period? If so, how much


irrelevant, since such short time spans have zero statistical signifigance.
NotParker
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2012
Using GISSTEMP data from 2001 to the present, what is the temperature trend for the period? Has the world significantly warmed during this period? If so, how much


irrelevant, since such short time spans have zero statistical signifigance.


Thats what warmists say .... 10 years is too short ... so is 15 ... but 18 years means the world is coming to an end.

You are beclowning yourself.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2012
ParkerTard isn't capable of learning either.

"Statisticians Reject Global Cooling" - American Scientist
http://www.americ...pub/-170

And yes... The analysis of these statisticians has been presented to him at least a half dozen times.

ParkerTard's mental disease prevents him from forming memories, particularly memories of his daily humiliation.

VendicarD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2012
What's wrong ParkerTard?

Cat got your tongue?

NotParker
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2012
ParkerTard isn't capable of learning either.

"Statisticians Reject Global Cooling" - American Scientist
http://www.americ...pub/-170



October 26th 2009 was 3 years ago.

It is even colder than it was 3 years ago.

http://www.woodfo...09/trend
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
But warmer than it was 4 years ago.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

"It is even colder than it was 3 years ago." - ParkerTard

And spectacularly warmer than a year ago.

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

How is it ParkerTard that the earth is

Warming since 2008
Cooling since 2009
Warming since 2011

So in your view the statisticians were right in 2009 but wrong in 2010 but right in 2011.

Ahahahahaha........

You are of course, mentally diseased.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
UbVonTard is upset that changing his start date by 0.5 years changes the slope of his trend from negative to positive.
That's because it's not a projection. It's a fixed series.

But we can change it by .5 the other way:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
He just can't accept that the statistical error in his pathetically short time series swamps his claimed signal.
I call blarney. Provide references.

The IPCC gives a decadel error of only around .15

http://www.ipcc.c...2-2.html

And that's irrelevant to the mean trend in a fixed data series anyway.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
And once again Uba presents cherry picked data.

Reality is quite different.

He is mentally diseased of course.

And once again Vendibot proves he can't even count to eleven.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
it is impossible to know if it has warmed in the last 15 years or not.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying it's impossible to know if your noodles are getting warm, or not, on the stove.

It may have either warmed, cooled or stayed the same. The combination of things like AMO, PDO, ENSO, and AO can easily hide the real trend behind them.
So now it's not about the temperature?

You need to wait unitl those cycles all come around to their next full cycle and then compare with the current period. Actually, you need to wait until they all go through several cycles, but we just don't have records that go back that far, since we just discovered those cycles in the past 15 years.
This is just a rationalization for ignoring the scientific record.

The scientific record is clear:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

It's about the temperature, stupid.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012
irrelevant, since such short time spans have zero statistical signifigance.
Irrelevant. When did I supposedly claim it's "statistically significant?"

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer out of the science deniers? I have no doubt if the past 11 years showed an upward trend, they'd be all over the internet ...shouting to the heavens, "The sky is falling!"

But since the global temperatures aren't cooperating with their preconceptions, it's suddenly about longer and longer term trends and ENSO cycles and crap?

All you're doing is stating the science isn't clear, and the science has never been clear. So any claims of "global warming" in the past and present, are bogus.

And, since the whole theory resolves around CO2, you're going to have to explain why the atmosphere hasn't been warming in spite of ever increasing CO2 content.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Is the whole theory crap, now?

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2012
Why no urgent action demanded to create a defense against meteors like the one that damaged Siberia in 1908?
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
"I don't speak for all libertarians, but I think there's a good case to be made that taxing people to protect the Earth from an asteroid, while within Congress's powers, is an illegitimate function of government from a moral perspective." - Sasha Volokh
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2012
Why no urgent action demanded to create a defense against meteors like the one that damaged Siberia in 1908?
OMG! The sky really IS falling! Run! Run! Run for your lives you AGWite fools! The sky is falling and you've missed the danger altogether!

(chuckle) Thanks Rygg.

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2012
In the past decade we have seen 3 impacts on Jupiter, at least one new impact crater on Mars and hundreds of meteroid impacts on the moon.

Here is picture showing some of the impact points seen on the Lunar Surface.

http://www.nasa.g...x323.jpg

If UbVonTard doesn't feel that building an asteroid deflector system for the earth is a good idea, I will offer him the following compromise.

Once the system is built, should the need arise to deploy it, then I will happily refund the money spent on his behalf to construct the device, as long as he is then obligated to put a bullet in his own head.

This way his bank account and his grave will as full as they would be on the day of the impact.

What say you Tard Boy... Is it a deal?
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
This is actually funny.

NotParker and Ubavontuba have both read my comments, the very same comments, and they have both taken offense to them, for opposite reasons. I must not have written very clearly, because they both seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Or they are so blinded by ideology that they aren't reading clearly.

I'll assume it's my fault for not writing clearly, and I'm willing to attempt to be more clear. I don't appreciate being called stupid though. That's seems like a rather immature or antisocial way to behave, and indicates a weakness in the strength of your argument and/or your understanding of the material.

Surprisingly, Vendicar seems to have actually read my comments and understood them, since he's the only one that didn't say I said something I didn't.

Responses to previous comments to follow:
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
Thats what warmists say .... 10 years is too short ... so is 15 ... but 18 years means the world is coming to an end.

You are beclowning yourself.


Actually, the generally accepted minimum time span for a climate trend is 30 years. I have said many times that I think that's still too short. I suspect natural cycles of variability cause noise in the data that make 30 year trends too short too. In the past 100 years, we've only measured around 1.5 C increase in temp. It's clear that the big regional cycles can cause increases and decreases near that magnitude over scales of 10 or 20 years. Therefor you need to have much more than 10 or 20 years if you want to see the real trend. I reject 50 year trends almost as strongly as I reject 10 or 20 year trends.

Thanks for the personal attack. I just love it when someone is trying to say I'm wrong and they throw out a line like that. It makes your criticism of my comment so weak. lol
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
That's ridiculous. That's like saying it's impossible to know if your noodles are getting warm, or not, on the stove.


Perhaps my comment was too brief. I meant that it is impossible to know if it has warmed or not if you "only" look at a 15 year period. Any 15, 20, or perhaps even 30 year period is likely to contain spurrious trends caused by noise. The real trend will only be seen when you compare long enough time spans that you average out the noise. I prefer 50 years at minimum, so take the mean temp in any two or more 50 year periods, and then you'll see trends. Parker's reference to the past ~15 years is meaningless.

So now it's not about the temperature?


I didn't say that. What makes you think I said that? I think you may have misunderstood me. The rest of your post is probably based on that misunderstanding as well, so I'll just wait for you to explain what you meant before I try to respond.

Thank you too, for the personal attack. Nice. Classy.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2012
Thats what warmists say .... 10 years is too short ... so is 15 ... but 18 years means the world is coming to an end.

You are beclowning yourself.


Actually, the generally accepted minimum time span for a climate trend is 30 years.


Thats what serial liar VD says. And it is totally bogus.

There are 30 year cycles like the PDO/AMO etc and shorter cycles like ENSO and now there is a PCO that is 100 years.

There are 1500 year cycles like Bond events.

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
I meant that it is impossible to know if it has warmed or not if you "only" look at a 15 year period.
Again, ridiculous. That's like saying we can't tell if the noodles have warmed if we only look at a one minute period. Obviously, the one minute period may not tell us the whole story, but we can definitely say it has (or has not) warmed during our period of observation.

The temperature record is clear. There's been no significant global warming for as much as 15 years:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Any 15, 20, or perhaps even 30 year period is likely to contain spurrious trends caused by noise.
Again, when did I claim it's statistically significant in regards to the long term trend? Are you denying the legitimacy of the temperature records? Upon what basis?

Did you know the Met Office claims an annual accuracy to within 0.05 degrees?

http://www.cru.ue...erature/

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
So now it's not about the temperature? - Uba
I didn't say that. What makes you think I said that? - GSwift7
You wrote:

"...it is impossible to know if it has warmed in the last 15 years or not. It may have either warmed, cooled or stayed the same. The combination of things like AMO, PDO, ENSO, and AO can easily hide the real trend behind them." - GSwift7

Thank you too, for the personal attack. Nice. Classy.
I'm sorry for your hurt feelings, but it wasn't intended to be a personal attack. It was a repurposed paraphrase of a famous Presidential (Bill Clinton) campaign slogan.

http://en.wikiped...d#Legacy

GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2012
There are 30 year cycles like the PDO/AMO etc and shorter cycles like ENSO and now there is a PCO that is 100 years.

There are 1500 year cycles like Bond events


I don't see where you are disagreeing with me. I'm saying that longer periods are needed, and that you need to compare at least two such periods. I'm saying 30 years is a minimum sample for one point on the slope. That means I think it takes at least 60 years to get a short term trend. Anything less than that is possibly contaminated by noise to the extent that if there is a real trend, you can't distinguish it from noise.

This is easy to understand. The cycles like PDO and AMO are just like the seasons of the year. You must get enough years to average out the difference between one winter and the next. Some winters are colder, longer, warmer, shorter, etc. You can measure the differences between seasons and figure out how many years you need. We don't know the limits of variability of AMO, etc. yet.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
Again, ridiculous. That's like saying we can't tell if the noodles have warmed if we only look at a one minute period. Obviously, the one minute period may not tell us the whole story, but we can definitely say it has (or has not) warmed during our period of observation.


That's not a good analogy. To compare climate to noodles, you need to have a burner that turns on and off periodically, and also have other factors like dropping in ice cubes every so often, add a heating lamp above, and an air conditioned fan blowing accross periodically too. Your minute of measurement will never tell you whether the noodles will eventually get hot or not. You can tell if it's getting warmer or cooler in that minute, but that has zero meaning if what you really want to know is when dinner will be ready.

15 years of Earth temperature measurements doesn't tell you if dinner will ever be ready.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
That's not a good analogy. To compare climate to noodles, you need to have a burner that turns on and off periodically,
Are you saying the sun turns on and off?

and also have other factors like dropping in ice cubes every so often, add a heating lamp above, and an air conditioned fan blowing accross periodically too.
Nothing like this happens to the earth, as the climate energy predominately comes from the sun.

Your minute of measurement will never tell you whether the noodles will eventually get hot or not. You can tell if it's getting warmer or cooler in that minute, but that has zero meaning if what you really want to know is when dinner will be ready.
Actually, it takes less than a minute to confirm the stove is working, and heat is being delivered to the pot. We can then walk away, reasonably assured the noodles will soon be ready.

cont...
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
15 years of Earth temperature measurements doesn't tell you if dinner will ever be ready.
But it does tell us what's happening now. Why are you so afraid of now?

Why is it so hard for you to simply admit there's been no significant global warming in as much as 15 years?

Science deniers routinely dismiss the science they disagree with. Are you a science denier?

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend