Melt ponds cause the Artic sea ice to melt more rapidly

Jan 18, 2013
Melt pond on Arctic sea ice, Photo: Stefan Hendricks, Alfred Wegener Institute

The Arctic sea ice has not only declined over the past decade but has also become distinctly thinner and younger. Researchers are now observing mainly thin, first-year ice floes which are extensively covered with melt ponds in the summer months where once metre-thick, multi-year ice used to float.

Sea physicists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have now measured the through the for the first time on a large scale, enabling them to quantify consequences of this change. They come to the conclusion that in places where melt water collects on the ice, far more sunlight and therefore energy is able to penetrate the ice than is the case for white ice without ponds. The consequence is that the ice is absorbing more , is melting faster, and more light is available for the ecosystems in and below the ice. The researchers have now published these new findings in the scientific journal .

Melt ponds count among the favourite motifs for ice and landscape photographers in the Arctic. They are captured glistening in a seductive blue or dark as a stormy sea on the ice floe. "Their colour depends entirely on how thick the remaining ice below the melt pond is and the extent to which the dark ocean beneath can be seen through this ice. Melt ponds on thicker ice tend to be turquoise and those on thin ice dark blue to black", explains Dr. Marcel Nicolaus, physicist and melt pond expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute.

Graphic depiction of the amount of sunlight above and underneath the Arctic sea ice. The growing coverage of the ice by darker meltponds increases the share of sunlight, which passes the sea ice. That means, the space underneath the ice becomes brighter and warmer. Furthermore less sunlight is refleced back into the atmosphere. Graphic: Marcel Nicolaus/Yves Nowak, Alfred Wegener

In recent years he and his team have observed a strikingly large number of melt ponds during summer expeditions to the central Arctic. Virtually half of the one-year ice was covered with melt ponds. Scientists attribute this observation to . "The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean has been undergoing for some years. Thick, multi-year ice is virtually nowhere to be found any more. Instead, more than 50 per cent of the ice cover now consists of thin one-year ice on which the melt water is particularly widespread. The decisive aspect here is the smoother surface of this young ice, permitting the melt water to spread over large areas and form a network of many individual melt ponds", explains Marcel Nicolaus. By contrast, the older ice has a rougher surface which has been formed over the years by the constant motion of the floe and innumerable collisions. Far fewer and smaller ponds formed on this uneven surface which were, however, considerably deeper than the flat ponds on the younger ice.

The growing number of "windows to the ocean", as melt ponds are also referred to, gave rise to a fundamental research question for Marcel Nicolaus: to what extent do the melt ponds and the thinning ice alter the amount of light beneath the sea ice? After all, the light in the sea – as on the land – constitutes the main energy source for photosynthesis. Without sunlight neither algae nor plants grow. Marcel Nicolaus: "We knew that an ice floe with a thick and fresh layer of snow reflects between 85 and 90 per cent of sunlight and permits only little light through to the ocean. In contrast, we could assume that in summer, when the snow on the ice has melted and the sea ice is covered with melt ponds, considerably more light penetrates through the ice."

Photo, taken by the ROV during its dive through deformed sea ice. The marker bars are one meter long. In the background one can see that more sunlight passes the sea ice, because the ice is covered by meltponds. The numbers and symbols, which are faded in, tell the direction and position of the ROV. They are needed by the pilot to steer the underwater roboter. Photo: Alfred Wegener

To find out the extent to which Arctic sea ice permits the penetration of the sun's rays and how large the influence of the melt ponds is on this permeability, the AWI sea ice physicists equipped a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV "Alfred") with radiation sensors and cameras. In the summer of 2011 during an Arctic expedition of the research ice breaker POLARSTERN, they sent this robot to several stations directly under the ice. During its underwater deployments, the device recorded how much solar energy penetrated the ice at a total of 6000 individual points all with different ice properties!

A unique data set was obtained in this way, the results of which are of great interest. Marcel Nicolaus explains: "The young thin ice with the many melt ponds does not just permit three times as much light to pass through than older ice. It also absorbs 50 per cent more solar radiation. This conversely means that this thin ice covered by melt ponds reflects considerably fewer sun rays than the thick ice. Its reflection rate is just 37 per cent. The young ice also absorbs more solar energy, which causes more melt. The ice melts from inside out to a certain extent," says Marcel Nicolaus.

What might happen in the future considering these new findings? Marcel Nicolaus: "We assume that in future climate change will permit more sunlight to reach the – and particularly also that part of the ocean which is still covered by sea ice in summer. The reason: the greater the share of one-year ice in the sea ice cover, the more melt ponds will form and the larger they will be. This will also lead to a decreasing surface albedo (reflectivity) and transmission into the ice and ocean will increase. The sea ice will become more porous, more sunlight will penetrate the ice floes, and more heat will be absorbed by the ice. This is a development which will further accelerate the melting of the entire sea ice area." However, at the same time the organisms in and beneath the ice will have more light available to them in future. Whether and how they will cope with the new brightness is currently being investigated in cooperation with biologists.

Explore further: Sculpting tropical peaks

More information: M. Nicolaus, C. Katlein, J. Maslanik, S. Hendricks: Changes in Arctic sea ice result in increasing light transmittance and absorption, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Issue 24, December 2012, Article first published online: 29 DEC 2012, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053738

Related Stories

Annual Arctic sea ice less reflective than old ice

May 17, 2012

In the Arctic Ocean, the blanket of permanent sea ice is being progressively replaced by a transient winter cover. In recent years the extent of the northern ocean's ice cover has declined. The summer melt season is starting ...

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 ...

Melting Arctic ice cap at record

Sep 24, 2012

With Arctic ice cap at record low this summer, University of Calgary geography professor John Yackel predicts serious consequences for the planet.

New method to estimate sea ice thickness

Mar 05, 2008

Scientists recently developed a new modeling approach to estimate sea ice thickness. This is the only model based entirely on historical observations.

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

2 hours ago

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

Volcano expert comments on Japan eruption

3 hours ago

Loÿc Vanderkluysen, PhD, who recently joined Drexel as an assistant professor in Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science in the College of Arts and Sciences, returned Friday from fieldwork ...

NASA's HS3 looks Hurricane Edouard in the eye

15 hours ago

NASA and NOAA scientists participating in NASA's Hurricane and Severe Storms Sentinel (HS3) mission used their expert skills, combined with a bit of serendipity on Sept. 17, 2014, to guide the remotely piloted ...

Tropical Storm Rachel dwarfed by developing system 90E

20 hours ago

Tropical Storm Rachel is spinning down west of Mexico's Baja California, and another tropical low pressure area developing off the coast of southwestern Mexico dwarfs the tropical storm. NOAA's GOES-West ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2013
2013 will be a record year for most ice.

Look how steep the red line is:

http://arctic-roo...area.png

SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2013
2013 will be a record year for most ice.

Look how steep the red line is:

http://arctic-roo...area.png


That's a brave prediction based on a linear projection of just fifteen days data. If the trend continues until March it may just reach the 15 million square kilometre record, but I very much doubt it.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2013
"Look how steep the red line is:" - ParkerTard

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

2013 will most probably be a near record low for sea ice extent, and a new record low for sea ice volume.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2013
2013 will be a record year for most ice.

Look how steep the red line is:

http://arctic-roo...area.png



Nutpecker,

Don't hold your breath.

And when this dearest wish and boldest prediction of yours expires in just a few, short weeks, maybe you can pevail upon some of the polar ice researchers to send you some of that scant ice to keep the corpse cooled with in the morgue, while it awaits autopsy to determine the cause of death and then burial.

We see such an apparent swift increase in sea ice(pretty much all brand-new stuff, too -not multi-year) extent because so much of the area was open sea just a couple of months ago.

Oh, and now the Polar Vortex has split in two and is wreaking havoc up there, so, of course, this freak dual-storm system is certain to lead to yet another record low sea-ice extent, just like this last year's --nyet?
FrankHerbert
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2013
No volcanoes?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2013
Look how steep the red line is:

And so - we could look at the big picture - and listen to the scientists who are studying the Arctic - or as is more usual for Parker - we could select a tiny bit of data - and pretend it says something profound - here we go again.

Here is a slightly more long term picture -

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]

Here is a five year snap shot -

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]

The 35 year picture -

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]]http://nsidc.org/...icenews/[/url]

Data prior to the 1970's is done with proxies - but until Parker can provide data to the contrary - "A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade" From http://en.wikiped...r_trends

What's your point troll Parker?
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2013
What's your point troll Parker?
His point is he's going to claim that no matter what the data suggests. If you repeat it enough, it becomes true, or so dumbasses like him think.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2013
2013 will be a record year for most ice.

Look how steep the red line is:

http://arctic-roo...area.png
That's an interesting dataset, but this one shows a more mundane trend:

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

But the snow extent appears significantly higher this year, than last:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2013
2013 will be a record year for most ice.

Look how steep the red line is:

http://arctic-roo...area.png



Temperature has fallen 12C in first 3 weeks.

http://ocean.dmi....n.uk.php

At the grey already.

http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php]http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php[/url]
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php]http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php[/url]
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2013
Temperature has fallen 12C in first 3 weeks

I wouldn't read too much into it, large temperature changes in the arctic are normal for this time of year. Check the previous years on DMI
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2013
Temperature has fallen 12C in first 3 weeks

I wouldn't read too much into it, large temperature changes in the arctic are normal for this time of year. Check the previous years on DMI


The whold world is cooling.

HADCRUT down .25C to .27C

http://notalotofp...ecember/

The scam is unravelling.

And if the AMO has peaked, Europe and eastern NA is screwed for 20-30 years.

The west coast of NA has already cooled .7C since the PDO went negative.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2013
The whold world is cooling. HADCRUT down .25C to .27C The scam is unravelling. ....


Really?

"Prominent critics of climate science contacted by New Scientist say the temperature record is not at issue. "I haven't ever suggested that temperatures haven't risen since the 19th century. Quite the contrary," says blogger and mathematician Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit. Nevertheless, McIntyre questions BEST's analyses of urban heating and weather station quality. "They're concentrating on the wrong question," says David Whitehouse, science adviser to The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London-based think tank that has former British finance minister Nigel Lawson for chairman. "Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed. The people who disagree about temperatures are the barking mad end of the spectrum."

The west coast of NA has already cooled .7C since the PDO went negative.
Basic Meteorology says downwind of lower temperatures will also have lower temps!!
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2013
It looks nearly identical to me.

"But the snow extent appears significantly higher this year, than last:" - UbVonTard

Perhaps your blind and don't know it.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2013
Thanx for the regional weather forecast.

"Temperature has fallen 12C in first 3 weeks." - ParkerTard

How has the temperature in the crisper of your refrigerator changed?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2013
Keep those monthly weather reports coming Tard Boy...

"HADCRUT down .25C to .27C" - ParkerTard

Meanwhile...

http://www.woodfo...11/trend
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2013
"The west coast of NA" - ParkerTard

Another nice regional weather report covering from .0002 percent of the earth's surface.

Poor ParkerTard. Next he will be referring to the daily temperature changes on his backyard thermometer.

https://www.surgo...er_I.jpg
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
HADCRUT4 is the whole world. Cooling for 12 years.

https://sunshineh...rut4.png
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
Hold on Tardie Boy. Earlier you said it had been cooling for the last 15.

"HADCRUT4 is the whole world. Cooling for 12 years." - ParkerTard

You certainly do change your mind as to when and where it has been cooling every moment or so.

But warming since 2008

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

Poor Cherry Picking ParkerTard.

He stopped treatment for his mental disease and now he is in a relapse of uncontrolled delusion.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
It looks nearly identical to me.

"But the snow extent appears significantly higher this year, than last:" - Uba

Perhaps your blind and don't know it.
Naw, that would be your problem. In fact, as you're just a spambot, I doubt you can even describe the images in question.

Go ahead, give it a shot.

But just so there's no doubt:

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
HADCRUT4 is the whole world. Cooling for 12 years.

https://sunshineh...rut4.png


Parky, it continues to astound me that you cannot take on board the fact that the climate is very complex with multiple cycles overlying the general CO2 warming signal, and that these will come to the for and obfuscate that signal in periods. Can you tell us why you would think that global temperatures should rise as a straight line? Actually it is the same obtuseness you show when referring to regional cooling. Again why would you expect all parts of the globe to warm at the same rate and pace?

I would be grateful if you would answer these 2 questions directly - not by diverting the argument to other areas/blogs.
Just tell us why you think the worlds climate behaviour could possibly be so simplistic as to behave in the way you think.

http://forum.slow...3744414;
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12


Snow is not purely a measure of cold. Water has to be evaporated and transported before falling as snow. That takes heat energy. There is good evidence that summer Arctic ice melt and consequently warmer Arctic seas have given rise to this greater NH snow cover.
See ( abstract only ) ....
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12


Snow is not purely a measure of cold. Water has to be evaporated and transported before falling as snow. That takes heat energy. There is good evidence that summer Arctic ice melt and consequently warmer Arctic seas have given rise to this greater NH snow cover.See ( abstract only ) ....
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Sure, and the iceage was a time of little snow because it was too cold to make snow and therefore the vast glaciers that supposedly piled up on the North American continent were caused not by an iceage, but by a period of extreme global warming!

And I bet the scientists in Antarctica laugh at us everyday as they lay about on the warm ice in their shorts, sipping pina coladas! (sarcasm)
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2013
Can you tell us why you would think that global temperatures should rise as a straight line?


The IPCC predicted a rise of .2C per decade as a result of a huge increase in CO2.

In fact, in response to a huge rise in CO2, temperatures stopped rising.

Most sane people now realize that natural variability causes large changes and CO2 is a teensy tiny signal overlaid over natural variabilities cycles.

rubberman
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
How's Washington making out this winter? I bet it is cold there right now....did you and Tuba get your contracts renewed or something?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
Now how could my perception of visual extent be wrong when it is supported by the numbers?

"Naw, that would be your problem." - UbVonTard

Your claim that there is substantially more ice now than at this time last year is a lie according to the data - plotted below.

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

According to today's data ice extent today is the same as it was last year on this date...

Perhaps your blind and don't know it.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
Can you tell us why you would think that global temperatures should rise as a straight line?

The IPCC predicted a rise of .2C per decade as a result of a huge increase in CO2.

In fact, in response to a huge rise in CO2, temperatures stopped rising.

Most sane people now realize that natural variability causes large changes and CO2 is a teensy tiny signal overlaid over natural variabilities cycles.


The 0.2C decadal rise predicted is an average. It is not expected/modeled to happen without the variability you admit to. So why harp on about "no warming for 12/15 years"?
You are contradicting yourself!

As for Anthro CO2 - you only have to look here for it to become obvious to "sane" people that it is indeed not a "teensy tiny signal"

http://en.wikiped...mosphere
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
As usual, ParkerTard tells a lie of omission.

"The IPCC predicted a rise of .2C per decade as a result of a huge increase in CO2." - ParkerTard

The IPCC also claims (correctly) that the .2'C decadal warming will be accompanied with significant variance in the global temperature on multi-decade time scales.

Natural climate variability is approximately 0.5'C over several decades. As a first order approximation, any temperature change under this value over that time scale, may or may not be a result of natural variations in the earth's weather.

So, if the IPCC projects a 0.2'C rise in global temperatures per decade, then we can expect to see global temperature change distinguish itself from global weather on the time scale of 2 to 3 decades.

Here is the climate change over the last 3 decades.

http://www.woodfo...83/trend

Which shows a temperature change from 0.12 to 0.64'C = 0.52'C over the time period.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
Isotopic studies of the composition of Carbon entering the atmosphere, prove conclusively that the excess CO2 comes directly from the burning of fossil fuels.

We have a very good measure of how much Carbon is entering the atmosphere from the burning of Carbon based fuels, because these fuels are sold, and all sales are recorded.

So we know that we are emitting x gigatonns of CO2 into the atmosphere through direct measurement, and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing by y. We also know through measurement that prior to industrialization, CO2 concentrations were static. IE dCO2 = 0

"Most sane people now realize that natural variability causes large changes and CO2" - ParkerTard

So we have the equation y*dt =(dCO2)*dt plus x*dt

ParkerTard imagines the CO2 being emitted by man magically vanishes and is replaced by another form of CO2 that is invisible so that the equation becomes...

y*dt =(dCO2)*dt plus x*dt * magic plus invisible*dt

Which is insanity.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
Sadly, the following paragraph is more intelligent than what UbVonTard usually writes.

"Sure, and the iceage was a time of little snow because it was too cold to make snow and therefore the vast glaciers that supposedly piled up on the North American continent were caused not by an iceage, but by a period of extreme global warming!" - UbVonTard

He is, of course, mentally diseased.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
The IPCC did not predict the 16 year drop in temperatures.

Not the cult is scrambling to make up explanations in the same way stock scammers try and keep people from bailing on a stock they promised would keep rising.

Wait until the AMO goes negative which is due now (or may already be happening).

There will be a .2C / decade drop in temperatures for 30 years.

Ice Age!
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
Poor Tard. He can't even post links that aren't broken.

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average." http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12" - UbVonTard

His mental disease is quite debilitating.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
The IPCC did not predict the 16 year drop in temperatures.

Not the cult is scrambling to make up explanations in the same way stock scammers try and keep people from bailing on a stock they promised would keep rising.
Wait until the AMO goes negative which is due now (or may already be happening).
There will be a .2C / decade drop in temperatures for 30 years.
Ice Age!


Oh, it's up to 16 yrs now then. Right oh!

The current "stall" in global temp rise was not predicted because it is not possible to predict. Other than to know that multiple cycles can meet and amplify, drowning the warming signal at some period in the time integration. Picking out those events cannot happen ( currently ).

If by "cult" you mean climate scientists ( the vast majority ). Science operates by observation/measurement vs testing against the current hypothesis. That is an ongoing procedure. It is still happening the Einsteins relativity theories. So obviously there will be new answers found as we go.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
16 years. 12. It all depends on the adjustments each group of AGW supporters make to the data.

http://www.dailym...-it.html

And, if as you say the flat line could not be predicted the science is not reliable.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
16 years. 12. It all depends on the adjustments each group of AGW supporters make to the data.

http://www.dailym...-it.html

And, if as you say the flat line could not be predicted the science is not reliable.


No, I said the flat line could not predicted at this time. Very different. The science is reliable in predicting at the underlying warming which you know exists.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
16 years. 12. It all depends on the adjustments each group of AGW supporters make to the data.

http://www.dailym...-it.html

And, if as you say the flat line could not be predicted the science is not reliable.


No, I said the flat line could not predicted at this time. Very different. The science is reliable in predicting at the underlying warming which you know exists.


So the predicted underlying warming was predicted, but it is so underlying it is indistinguishable from not warming?
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2013
ParkerTard provides the reference graphic at...

http://www.dailym...-it.html

But it doesn't look much like the real data displayed at...

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Not even the start and end points of ParkerTard's graph correspond to the real data.

Why is that ParkerTard?

Could it be that the Daily Mail Tabloid, which is well known for it's dishonesty has dishonestly manufactured the graphic?

The article is about the HadCrut4 data set. Why doesn't the graphic actually show the HadCrut4 data set?

Poor ParketTard. Yet another one of his "sources" is exposed as nothing but dishonest nonsense.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
"...Sure, and the iceage was a time of little snow because it was too cold to make snow and therefore the vast glaciers that supposedly piled up on the North American continent were caused not by an iceage, but by a period of extreme global warming!..."

"Supposedly"?

Not even you, ubybooby, can hope to question this fact. Not only did the Ice pile up kilometers thick upon North America, but in the northern lattitudes of the remainder of the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence of this is widespread and indisputable.

No one with a shred of scientific literacy would deny this claim, even as a casual mistake.

This rejection of, and direspect for Science is yet another reason why no-one can take any of your claims the least bit seriously.

Combined with your penchant for cherry-picking, misdirection and lies of ommission, that is.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
First: The IPCC isn't in the business of predicting weather.

Second: There hasn't been a 16 year drop in temperature.

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

"The IPCC did not predict the 16 year drop in temperatures." - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally diseased ParkerTard. He just can't figure out which way is up.

VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
Tell us ParkerTard. What is the invisible origin of the CO2 that you claim exactly replaces the anthropogenic CO2 that you claim magically vanishes when it enters the atmosphere?

Would it be the 3 million invisible "active volcano's" that you insist, without evidence, exist all over the ocean floor.

Poor ParkerTard. It must be so lonely for you living alone on the planet Conervadopeia.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
CO2 fluctuates by 3 - 6 ppm every day according to monitoring stations.

Where does it go? Thats a big question. But your inference that we know exactly where every molecule goes is insane.

Remember, when the IPCC claims something, it usually turns out to be a lie.

16 years of no warming ... and counting.

When the AMO goes negative, the UK will be back to having frost fairs when the Thames freezes over.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
My data was 2001 to 2012.

Compare it to here:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Woodfortrees graphs are square, mine are wider. Same data. Same downward slope.

HADCRUT3 is flat from 1997.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2013
"CO2 fluctuates by 3 - 6 ppm every day according to monitoring stations. Where does it go? " - ParkerTard

If it was all vanishing simultaneously all over the earth's surface and then returning, it certainly would be a big mystery.

But since it isn't, it isn't a mystery at all.

Spatial and temporal variability of land CO2 fluxes
estimated with remote sensing and analysis data
over western Eurasia

https://www.googl...tJmY-Ptg

Seasonal and daily pattern, temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem
CO2-exchange in a temperate Pannonian loess grassland

http://www.zpok.z...3_20.pdf

But then most everything is a big mystery to ParkerTard
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
What a childish claim.

"16 years of no warming ... and counting." - ParkerTard

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

I see a warming trend of roughly 0.1'C over that time period.

It is sad that ParkerTard's mental disease causes him to lie like that.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
"HADCRUT3 is flat from 1997." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He has repeatedly been told that HadCrut3 has been retired in part because it had poor coverage of the polar regions - excluding vast areas where the warming is the highest, thereby biasing the global temperature trend low.

HadCrut4 does a better job of including the polar regions.

ParkerTard has been told this dozens of times.

VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2013
Sorry Tard Boy but your chart starts in 2001. The fake temperature chart shown in your daily mail reference starts in 1997.

"Compare it to here:" - ParkerTard

We must compare this...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

With this...

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

And it is clear to see that the Fraud chart presented by the Daily Mail doesn't even have the start and end points for the data correct.

Poor ParkerTard. "Fraud" is his middle name.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
Now how could my perception of visual extent be wrong when it is supported by the numbers?
What numbers?

Your claim that there is substantially more ice now than at this time last year is a lie according to the data - plotted below.
LOL! Vendispambot doesn't know the difference between sea ice and snow extent! LOL!

Spambots like Vendispambot are foisted on the world by the AGWite faithful.

If their science is so valid, why do they need childish insult spewing programs to proselytize their faith?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
Poor Uba. He can't even post links that aren't broken.

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during December 2012 was much above average."

http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/12 - Uba

His mental disease is quite debilitating.
LOL. The Vendispambot can't access links! LOL!

Time to call I.T. for service!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
"...Sure, and the iceage was a time of little snow because it was too cold to make snow and therefore the vast glaciers that supposedly piled up on the North American continent were caused not by an iceage, but by a period of extreme global warming!..."


"Supposedly"?

Not even you, ubybooby, can hope to question this fact. Not only did the Ice pile up kilometers thick upon North America, but in the northern lattitudes of the remainder of the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence of this is widespread and indisputable.

No one with a shred of scientific literacy would deny this claim, even as a casual mistake.

This rejection of, and direspect for Science is yet another reason why no-one can take any of your claims the least bit seriously.

Combined with your penchant for cherry-picking, misdirection and lies of ommission, that is.
LOL! Caliban takes sarcasm seriously ...even when it's clearly marked: "(sarcasm)"

What a buffoon.

Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2013
"...Sure, and the iceage was a time of little snow because it was too cold to make snow and therefore the vast glaciers that supposedly piled up on the North American continent were caused not by an iceage, but by a period of extreme global warming!..."


"Supposedly"?

Not even you, ubybooby, can hope to question this fact. Not only did the Ice pile up kilometers thick upon North America, but in the northern lattitudes of the remainder of the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence of this is widespread and indisputable.

No one with a shred of scientific literacy would deny this claim, even as a casual mistake.

This rejection of, and direspect for Science is yet another reason why no-one can take any of your claims the least bit seriously.

Combined with your penchant for cherry-picking, misdirection and lies of ommission, that is.
LOL! Caliban takes sarcasm seriously ...even when it's clearly marked: "(sarcasm)"

What a buffoon.


LOL! I forgot to label my sarcasm!