Study says Arctic melt season lengthening, ocean rapidly warming

Mar 31, 2014 by Maria-José Viñas
This is an image mosaic of sea ice in the Canadian Basin, taken by Operation IceBridge's Digital Mapping System on Mar. 28, 2014. Credit: Digital Mapping System/NASA Ames

The length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap's thickness, according to a new study by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA researchers.

Arctic sea ice has been in sharp decline during the last four decades. The sea ice cover is shrinking and thinning, making scientists think an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer might be reached this century. The seven lowest September sea ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the past seven years.

"The Arctic is warming and this is causing the melt season to last longer," said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at NSIDC, Boulder and lead author of the new study, which has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. "The lengthening of the melt season is allowing for more of the sun's energy to get stored in the and increase ice melt during the summer, overall weakening the sea ice cover."

To study the evolution of sea ice melt onset and freeze-up dates from 1979 to the present day, Stroeve's team used passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer, and the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder carried onboard Defense Meteorological Satellite Program spacecraft.

When ice and snow begin to melt, the presence of water causes spikes in the microwave radiation that the snow grains emit, which these sensors can detect. Once the melt season is in full force, the microwave emissivity of the ice and snow stabilizes, and it doesn't change again until the onset of the freezing season causes another set of spikes. Scientists can measure the changes in the ice's microwave emissivity using a formula developed by Thorsten Markus, co-author of the paper and chief of the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
The length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice is growing by several days each decade, and an earlier start to the melt season is allowing the Arctic Ocean to absorb enough additional solar radiation in some places to melt as much as four feet of the Arctic ice cap’s thickness

Results show that although the melt season is lengthening at both ends, with an earlier melt onset in the spring and a later freeze-up in the fall, the predominant phenomenon extending the melting is the later start of the freeze season. Some areas, such as the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, are freezing up between six and 11 days later per decade. But while melt onset variations are smaller, the timing of the beginning of the melt season has a larger impact on the amount of absorbed by the ocean, because its timing coincides with when the sun is higher and brighter in the Arctic sky.

Despite large regional variations in the beginning and end of the melt season, the Arctic melt season has lengthened on average by five days per decade from 1979 to 2013.

Still, weather makes the timing of the autumn freeze-up vary a lot from year to year.

"There is a trend for later freeze-up, but we can't tell whether a particular year is going to have an earlier or later freeze-up," Stroeve said. "There remains a lot of variability from year to year as to the exact timing of when the ice will reform, making it difficult for industry to plan when to stop operations in the Arctic."

To measure changes in the amount of solar energy absorbed by the ice and ocean, the researchers looked at the evolution of sea surface temperatures and studied monthly surface albedo data (the amount of solar energy reflected by the ice and the ocean) together with the incoming solar radiation for the months of May through October. The albedo and sea surface temperature data the researchers used comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's polar-orbiting satellites.

They found that the ice pack and ocean waters are absorbing more and more sunlight due both to an earlier opening of the waters and a darkening of the sea ice. The cover is becoming less reflective because it now mostly consists of thinner, younger ice, which is less reflective than the older ice that previously dominated the ice pack. Also, the young ice is flatter, allowing the dark melt ponds that form at the early stages of the are able to spread more widely, further lowering its albedo.

The researchers calculated the increase in solar radiation absorbed by the ice and ocean for the period ranging from 2007 to 2011, which in some areas of the Arctic Ocean exceed 300 to 400 megajoules per square meter, or the amount of energy needed to thin the by an additional 3.1 to 4.2 feet (97 to 130 centimeters).

The increases in surface ocean temperatures, combined with a warming Arctic atmosphere due to climate change, explain the delayed freeze up in the fall.

"If air and ocean temperatures are similar, the ocean is not going to lose heat to the atmosphere as fast as it would when the differences are greater," said Linette Boisvert, co-author of the paper and a cryospheric scientist at Goddard. "In the last years, the upper ocean heat content is much higher than it used to be, so it's going to take a longer time to cool off and for freeze up to begin."

Explore further: New data confirms Arctic ice trends: Sea ice being lost at a rate of five days per decade

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

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 ...

Arctic sea ice avoids last year's record low

Oct 04, 2013

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Depression 9 forms in Gulf of Mexico

4 hours ago

Tropical Depression Nine formed over the western Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico and is forecast to make a quick landfall on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. NOAA's GOES-East Satellite captured the birth of the ...

$58 million effort to study potential new energy source

9 hours ago

A research team led by The University of Texas at Austin has been awarded approximately $58 million to analyze deposits of frozen methane under the Gulf of Mexico that hold enormous potential to increase ...

And now, the volcano forecast

10 hours ago

Scientists are using volcanic gases to understand how volcanoes work, and as the basis of a hazard-warning forecast system.

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

User68niou1
1.5 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2014
I wouldn't trust these scientists to take a proper rectal temperature.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (22) Mar 31, 2014
I wouldn't trust these scientists to take a proper rectal temperature.

Damn scientists! Stop comprehensively studying stuff and announcing results. I know best! You see, I have spent 0 year studying this stuff, and I know that what I feel in my gut reflects reality much better than peer reviewed results. - User68niou1
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 31, 2014
User68niou1 showed himself up & so easily too, bet he can't play poker
I wouldn't trust these scientists to take a proper rectal temperature.
The only people that talk the way u do and also do (lol) on a public forum are those that missed out on a university education, especially the training in critical analysis. You probably missed out on a high school education as well (sigh).

Ever been in a laboratory and observed experimental methods ?

Ever relied on medicine - Scientists ?

Ever relied on mobile phones - Scientists ?

Ever relied on any form of transport - Scientists ?

You talk like a luddite, horses and shit on the street for you, food of doubtful safety, infections not treated with antibiotics etc etc etc What a sad pitiful anti-intellectual you appear to be.

Of course people like you are not real - you must be pretending to be an idiot,

Cheers

ps: nm, community college for you, that is IF you want to do something useful with your life :-)
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2014
User68niou1 is just a plant. Look at what he wrote; "I wouldn't trust these scientists to take a proper rectal temperature." This person a psychological problems. You know. He is expressing what has happened to him. If we analyze deeply, his psychosis and fixation is certainly towards the rectum. That and probing. Probing in areas where ... anti-science loves to fixate.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2014
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is becasue it's bounded by land. When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less. If you took the land away, it would be setting records, as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes.

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2014
This century?

We're on track to see a summer meltout this decade!

Look up a plot of the PIOMAS annual minimum volume data. Current best fit line hits zero in 2017.

(Don't be mislead by extent data. Sea ice has three dimensions and it's been thinning like crazy.)
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2014
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is becasue it's bounded by land. When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less. If you took the land away, it would be setting records, as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes.


Uba: Please give us some URLs for this. It sounds very interesting and I would love to see your references.

BTW, weren't you telling us this summer that Arctic ice is back on the rise? Do you still believe that the increasing ice trend you were telling us about in the Arctic last summer will continue for the next 20 years as you predicted? I just want to know what to prepare for.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2014
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is becasue it's bounded by land. When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less. If you took the land away, it would be setting records, as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes.
Well, except that it has been unusually warm in the Artic this winter (https://nsidc.org...h-bite/) leading to a slower than average expansion of the ice pack and the fourth lowest recorded ice extent ever. (http://nsidc.org/...re3.png)

As usual, Uba just makes stuff up and hopes no one checks.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2014
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is becasue it's bounded by land. When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less. If you took the land away, it would be setting records, as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes.
Uba: Please give us some URLs for this. It sounds very interesting and I would love to see your references.
Are you suggesting you don't believe the Great Lakes saw an unusualy harsh freeze this year?

http://www.accuwe...23439393

BTW, weren't you telling us this summer that Arctic ice is back on the rise? Do you still believe that the increasing ice trend you were telling us about in the Arctic last summer will continue for the next 20 years as you predicted? I just want to know what to prepare for.
What prediction are you talking about? Are blatant fabrications the best you can do?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2014
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is because it is bounded by land. When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less. If you took the land away, it would be setting records, as evidenced by the unusual freezing of the great lakes.
Well, except that it has been unusually warm in the Artic this winter ( https://nsidc.org...ch-bite/ )
Which isn't even relevant.

From your own reference:

"The Arctic in winter is still a very cold place and temperatures at the 925 mb level in the central Arctic averaged -25 to -15 degrees Celsius (-13 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit);"

They found a 60- to 90-year cycle in Barents and Greenland seas ice extent ...This research shows that in addition to the warming trend in the Arctic, some sea ice regions are likely also responding to natural climate variability."

And from the previous month's article:

"a decrease in extent does not necessarily imply a corresponding decrease in ice volume.

...the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012."

https://nsidc.org...n-under/

Of course this isn't enough data to suggest a long term trend, but it isn't insignificant.

As usual, Uba just makes stuff up and hopes no one checks.
This appears to be your shtick.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2014
Uba said: "Are you suggesting you don't believe the Great Lakes saw an unusualy harsh freeze this year?"

When you are talking about an article on the Arctic.

The arctic circle is at about 66 degrees north. The northern most part of the great lakes is about 49 degrees north. That is a little south of London England. Do you think London is in the Arctic? Maybe you can explain to us how the great lakes are in the Arctic. Some links would be good.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2014
Uba said: "Are you suggesting you don't believe the Great Lakes saw an unusualy harsh freeze this year?"

When you are talking about an article on the Arctic.

The arctic circle is at about 66 degrees north. The northern most part of the great lakes is about 49 degrees north. That is a little south of London England. Do you think London is in the Arctic? Maybe you can explain to us how the great lakes are in the Arctic. Some links would be good.
So now you think all Arctic sea ice resides only in the Arctic circle? Maybe you don't think the Hudson Bay ice counts?

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2014
Uba said:

"So now you think all Arctic sea ice resides only in the Arctic circle? Maybe you don't think the Hudson Bay ice counts?"

This is in response to my pointing out that the Great Lakes are south of the Arctic AND do not have sea ice (since they are not seas or oceans).

As Uba said: "...as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes."

Uba, are the Great Lakes in the Arctic? Do they have sea ice? Maybe you can clear this up for us. And then again, you probably can't because you are just tossing out word-salad.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2014
Uba:
When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less.

Not true. See "Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation"; Rigor, Wallace & Colony; Journal of Climate 15(18): 2648-2663 (September 2000).
http://adsabs.har...15.2648R
http://seaice.apl....edu/AO/

The phrases "over land" and "over water" are not good at describing the Arctic oscillation. However, I interpret "over land" to mean the negative phase, when the polar vortex extends into the temperate latitudes, while "over water" is the positive phase, where the polar vortex remains mostly in Arctic regions. Whole-basin Arctic sea ice area is larger during the positive phase and lower during the negative phase. The same is true for the eastern Arctic, although the trend is opposite for the western Arctic (see table A1 in the paper). Recent freezing of the Great Lakes is due to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2014
Uba:
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is because it's bounded by land.

No, the primary reason is that the water it sits on is warming. See "Arctic Ocean Warming Contributes to Reduced Polar Ice Cap"; Polyakov, et al., Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(12): 2743-2756 (December 2010).
http://adsabs.har...40.2743P

This study examines the warming of the Atlantic Ocean and the intrusion of the warmer water into the Arctic Ocean. They find what should be obvious: The Arctic sea ice thins because of the warmer water under it. Furthermore, I will point out that the thinning of Arctic sea ice is progressing faster than any climate model has ever been able to predict.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2014
Uba quoting from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
…the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012."

True, but not as meaningful as Uba seems to think. Look here and see the long term Arctic ice volume, especially figure 1:
http://psc.apl.wa...anomaly/

The 3 years 2010-2012 were, each in their turn, record setting low ice years at minimum. 2013 showed more polar ice at minimum than 2010, but less then the previous record year 2007. The plot clearly shows the strong long term negative trend beginning about 1986. There is significant noise, but the trend is obvious. It is unreasonable to interpret the 2013 data to imply that the long term trend has stopped, and it is even worse to pretend that the long term trend does not exist at all.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2014
The 3 years 2010-2012 were, each in their turn, record setting low ice years at minimum. 2013 showed more polar ice at minimum than 2010, but less then the previous record year 2007. The plot clearly shows the strong long term negative trend beginning about 1986. There is significant noise, but the trend is obvious. It is unreasonable to interpret the 2013 data to imply that the long term trend has stopped, and it is even worse to pretend that the long term trend does not exist at all.

Exactly so Tim...

But there is nothing "reasonable" about deniers.
Everything is mirrored through their selfish, ideological paradigm.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2014
Uba said:

"So now you think all Arctic sea ice resides only in the Arctic circle? Maybe you don't think the Hudson Bay ice counts?"

This is in response to my pointing out that the Great Lakes are south of the Arctic AND do not have sea ice (since they are not seas or oceans).

As Uba said: "...as evidenced by the unusal freezing of the great lakes."

Uba, are the Great Lakes in the Arctic? Do they have sea ice? Maybe you can clear this up for us. And then again, you probably can't because you are just tossing out word-salad.
When did I supposedly claim the Great Lakes have sea ice? Are you having trouble understanding the context? What, specifically is your argument, and what, specifically, do you disgree with that I wrote, and why?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Uba:
When the Arctic Oscillation is over land, the ocean freezes less.

Not true. See "Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation"; Rigor, Wallace & Colony; Journal of Climate 15(18): 2648-2663 (September 2000).
http://adsabs.har...15.2648R
http://seaice.apl....edu/AO/
Posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?

The phrases "over land" and "over water" are not good at describing the Arctic oscillation. However, I interpret "over land" to mean the negative phase, when the polar vortex extends into the temperate latitudes, while "over water" is the positive phase, where the polar vortex remains mostly in Arctic regions. Whole-basin Arctic sea ice area is larger during the positive phase and lower during the negative phase. The same is true for the eastern Arctic, although the trend is opposite for the western Arctic (see table A1 in the paper). Recent freezing of the Great Lakes is due to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation.
You're just pedantically reiterating what I wrote.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Uba:
The whole Arctic sea ice loss thing is a scam. The only reason it gets low is because it's bounded by land.
No, the primary reason is that the water it sits on is warming. See "Arctic Ocean Warming Contributes to Reduced Polar Ice Cap"; Polyakov, et al., Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(12): 2743-2756 (December 2010).
http://adsabs.har...40.2743P
Outdated news. Did you not see my link showing Arctic ice volume is increasing in recent years?

This study examines the warming of the Atlantic Ocean and the intrusion of the warmer water into the Arctic Ocean. They find what should be obvious: The Arctic sea ice thins because of the warmer water under it. Furthermore, I will point out that the thinning of Arctic sea ice is progressing faster than any climate model has ever been able to predict.
So, though I have already provided a link from the NOAA stating the ice volume and thickness are increasing, you are simply going to insist they are lying?

And when it's cold over land, you don't think that if this same area was ocean there would be any sea ice there? Really?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
Uba quoting from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
…the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012."
True, but not as meaningful as Uba seems to think. Look here and see the long term Arctic ice volume, especially figure 1:
http://psc.apl.wa...anomaly/

The 3 years 2010-2012 were, each in their turn, record setting low ice years at minimum. 2013 showed more polar ice at minimum than 2010, but less then the previous record year 2007. The plot clearly shows the strong long term negative trend beginning about 1986. There is significant noise, but the trend is obvious. It is unreasonable to interpret the 2013 data to imply that the long term trend has stopped, and it is even worse to pretend that the long term trend does not exist at all.
Are you really this stupid? Did you not see where I clearly wrote: "Of course this isn't enough data to suggest a long term trend, but it isn't insignificant."

And did you not see the part about the probable tie-in with natural climate variability?

Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
The ubbatubba says;
Outdated news. Did you not see my link showing Arctic ice volume is increasing in recent years?
What link tubba? You mean that link that the world is slowing going to freeze in 10 years? That one? The link that directly conflicts with what is actually happening? Global warming. The link that conflicts with what is observed, tested, analyzed, proved, simulated, reported, and acted on ... that link that is BS.

You deniers will just look dumber and dumber.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Exactly so Tim...

But there is nothing "reasonable" about deniers.
Everything is mirrored through their selfish, ideological paradigm.
There's no real point in arguing with AGW Nazis, as they are demonstrably terrible human beings.

And, their arguments aren't even founded on logic and reason.

It appears the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies likely induces a defensive stress hysteria which subsequently traps them in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against them, the worse they get as human beings!

Bob_Wallace
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
End of February, 2014 PIOMAS volume was lower than end of February, 2013.

Volume was up a bit at the end of the melting season last summer, but that increase has been wiped out via less freezing over the winter.

And things are looking bad for ice going forward. The pack is very mobile and right now a lot is being pushed into the Greenland and Barents Seas where it will rapidly melt. Siberian snow cover is very low and the ice is already starting to melt away from that coast.

Projections are for significant melting in the outlying areas over the next several days.

A normal or warm melt season is going to murder a lot of ice.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
The ubbatubba says;
Outdated news. Did you not see my link showing Arctic ice volume is increasing in recent years?
What link tubba? You mean that link that the world is slowing going to freeze in 10 years? That one? The link that directly conflicts with what is actually happening? Global warming. The link that conflicts with what is observed, tested, analyzed, proved, simulated, reported, and acted on ... that link that is BS.

You deniers will just look dumber and dumber.
Howhot typifies the deviancy amplification spiral.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
End of February, 2014 PIOMAS volume was lower than end of February, 2013.

Volume was up a bit at the end of the melting season last summer, but that increase has been wiped out via less freezing over the winter.

And things are looking bad for ice going forward. The pack is very mobile and right now a lot is being pushed into the Greenland and Barents Seas where it will rapidly melt. Siberian snow cover is very low and the ice is already starting to melt away from that coast.

Projections are for significant melting in the outlying areas over the next several days.

A normal or warm melt season is going to murder a lot of ice.
Really?

"The extent of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean is distinctly greater than it was at the beginning of last winter. During the summer of 2013, a larger fraction of first-year ice survived compared to recent years. This ice has now become second-year ice. Additionally, the predominant recirculation of the multiyear ice pack within the Beaufort Gyre this winter and a reduced transport of multiyear ice through Fram Strait maintained the multiyear ice extent throughout the winter."

http://nsidc.org/...maximum/

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
The @Ubbatubba blows
Really?
and then sites a study he hasn't even read fully and takes a quotation out of context to justify his lie. Normally that is called BS @tubba. Your blowing a little flat dude.

The polar bears will be fine. NOT!
http://www.polarb...-hanging
Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Extent is a poor measurement of the amount of ice remaining. It only measures two dimensions. But let's look at it anyway.

Extent blew up a few days ago because the winds started blowing ice toward Europe and spread the field out considerably. When ice spreads and temperatures are still low there is generally quick freezing between the floes, but that is very thin ice which will melt quickly.

We did get a bit of a bump up in multi year ice, but it's within normal variability ranges. And we didn't create enough new ice over the winter to get back up to 2012-2013 volume levels.

Right now extent is pretty much tied with 2007 for the second lowest level on record. It brushed up against 2012 (lowest on record) a few days ago.

Other than the mid-March ice spread out extent has been in lowest, second lowest, third lowest back and forth since Jan 1. And the spread out lasted only about a week.

Recovery was only a wish.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
The @Ubbatubba blows
Really?
and then sites a study he hasn't even read fully and takes a quotation out of context to justify his lie. Normally that is called BS @tubba. Your blowing a little flat dude.

The polar bears will be fine. NOT!
http://www.polarb...-hanging
"Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001"

http://polarbears...ce-2001/

Again, Howhot has typified the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
Extent is a poor measurement of the amount of ice remaining. It only measures two dimensions. But let's look at it anyway.

Extent blew up a few days ago because the winds started blowing ice toward Europe and spread the field out considerably. When ice spreads and temperatures are still low there is generally quick freezing between the floes, but that is very thin ice which will melt quickly.

We did get a bit of a bump up in multi year ice, but it's within normal variability ranges.
And "normal" is supposed to be a bad thing?

And we didn't create enough new ice over the winter to get back up to 2012-2013 volume levels.
Source?

Right now extent is pretty much tied with 2007 for the second lowest level on record. It brushed up against 2012 (lowest on record) a few days ago.
Again, it's only low because the Arctic ocean is bounded by land. If the North America continent wasn't there, we'd be seeing near record extents.

Other than the mid-March ice spread out extent has been in lowest, second lowest, third lowest back and forth since Jan 1. And the spread out lasted only about a week.
Try fifth lowest (of just 36 samples).

"The Arctic maximum was the fifth lowest in the 1978 to 2014 record."

http://nsidc.org/...maximum/

Recovery was only a wish.
It remains within the bounds of natural variation.

Bob_Wallace
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
Normal, in this case means within the normal range of variability around a rapidly declining curve. Normal has no good/bad meaning in this case.

Source? PIOMAS

Your land bounded argument is very strange.

First, it's irrelevant. The Arctic Ocean is what it is. And it's melting.

Second, was the Arctic Ocean not protected by surrounding land masses it almost certainly would have melted out earlier. If the ice wasn't trapped by land and if the warmer ocean water not hampered by land the ice would stand no chance.

Remember, that thick multi-year is stuff that gets pushed up along the Canadian Archipelago and piles up high. If North America wasn't there it would keep moving on down to the equator.

Fifth lowest of 36 recent samples plus many centuries of non-melting. It's the last few decades that are important. That's when the melting started.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Fifth lowest of 36 recent samples plus many centuries of non-melting. It's the last few decades that are important. That's when the melting started.
Bob, are fabrications all you have? Even the NOAA admits the Arctic sea ice appears to have 90 year cycles.

And, were you not aware of the early 20th century Arctic warming?

"'Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.' - IPCC AR5 Chapter 10"

http://judithcurr...warming/

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Temperature anomalies are not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the fact that the Arctic sea ice is rapidly melting and is likely to experience a total meltout before the end of this decade.

There is some data which suggests that the Arctic Ocean was free of ice 6,000 - 8,500 years ago but that data is not widely accepted. The most agreed upon ice free AO was 120,000 years ago.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Temperature anomalies are not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the fact that the Arctic sea ice is rapidly melting and is likely to experience a total meltout before the end of this decade.
I'd be willing to bet against this.

There is some data which suggests that the Arctic Ocean was free of ice 6,000 - 8,500 years ago but that data is not widely accepted. The most agreed upon ice free AO was 120,000 years ago.
So, did the world end then?

(pause for effect)

...Or, was it greener and more conducive to life?

Whatever the case, all you're doing is providing for the natural variation argument.

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
So bet against it. I'm sure you can find someone who will take your money. Are those on line betting shops still operating?

Did the world end then? No, but sea levels were sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

http://www.wunder...aIce.asp

You can see what happens when the seas rise that high here.

http://geology.co...rk.shtml
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
So bet against it. I'm sure you can find someone who will take your money. Are those on line betting shops still operating?
So you're saying you're not willing to back your own assertion?

Did the world end then? No, but sea levels were sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

http://www.wunder...aIce.asp
Didn't you know, the Arctic sea ice can melt all it wants without affecting sea levels? You do at least know sea ice float on the water, right? Try letting some ice cubes melt in a glass of water and watch the water level. Does it change?

You can see what happens when the seas rise that high here.

http://geology.co...rk.shtml
This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a scam, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
No, I'm saying that I don't bet on stuff.

Yes, I do know that the Arctic sea ice is already in the water. But when the sea ice goes then the melt rate for Greenland will increase.

BTW, Greenland melting seems to have accelerated.

Can you answer something for me? Why do you think that you know more than thousands of climate scientists who have spent their careers studying the climate and have excellent access to the best data?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2014
No, I'm saying that I don't bet on stuff.
At least not with your own money. But AGWites seem to have no problem with taking other people's money.

Yes, I do know that the Arctic sea ice is already in the water. But when the sea ice goes then the melt rate for Greenland will increase.
First, B.S.. The sea ice can't "go." It naturally melts and reforms every year. Even if the summer eventually becomes "ice free," this will be fleeting, as the ice will soon reform. It's an annual cycle.

Second, B.S.. Greenland goes through the same long term cycles I discussed previously. It isn't doing anything it hasn't done before.

BTW, Greenland melting seems to have accelerated.
B.S. The claims of accelerated melting would have to accelerate sea level change. This isn't happening.

Can you answer something for me? Why do you think that you know more than thousands of climate scientists who have spent their careers studying the climate and have excellent access to the best data?
I don't. I just think I'm being more honest with the facts.

I think it's safe to say, environmentalists are often blinded by their own "crusader" mentality. Sometimes it seems they're so eager to "save the planet," they risk saving it to its (and/or our) detriment.

Cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2014
...cont:

I guess in my way I'm a crusader too, but a crusader for objectivity.

How about you, Bob? What do you believe in?

Bob_Wallace
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2014
Far too few people realize the external cost of fossil fuels. Even if we didn't need to move to renewables to avoid worsening climate change it would pay us to make the move. Spending a public dollar to save four public dollars is wise.

There are natural cycles. Changes in Earth orbit can bring about climate change. As can the rise of a mountain range or a connection made between two continents. However this one is on us.

Actually sea level rise is accelerating.

https://www.skept...rise.htm

http://www.realcl...erating/

I'm not talking about environmentalists. I'm talking about climate scientists. And it's hard to find a more objective group of individuals that scientists.

Again, what makes you believe that you know more about the climate than thousands of climate scientists? Or that you are more honest with the facts than are thousands of climate scientists?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
Far too few people realize the external cost of fossil fuels. Even if we didn't need to move to renewables to avoid worsening climate change it would pay us to make the move. Spending a public dollar to save four public dollars is wise.
Elaborate.

There are natural cycles. Changes in Earth orbit can bring about climate change. As can the rise of a mountain range or a connection made between two continents. However this one is on us.
Is it?

Actually sea level rise is accelerating.
Saying so doesn't make it so. I still visit the same beaches I did as a kid, and they remain unchanged by time. And I can't find any credible references in regards to increasing coastal flooding and erosion rates attributable to sea level rise.

https://www.skept...rise.htm

http://www.realcl...erating/
And there we have the obligatory "Skeptical Science (not)" and "Real Climate (not)" references. These are clearly not objective references. Let's look at a more objective reference and see what we find, shall we?

"Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible."

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

I'm not talking about environmentalists. I'm talking about climate scientists. And it's hard to find a more objective group of individuals that scientists.
Generally speaking, "climate scientists" are also environmentalists. And if they were objective, they'd openly discuss and study the pause, rather than try to hide and deny it exists.

http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Again, what makes you believe that you know more about the climate than thousands of climate scientists? Or that you are more honest with the facts than are thousands of climate scientists?
Redundant questioning won't elicit different answers.

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
Elaboration -

http://chge.med.h...cle-coal

Yes, it is - link was provided

Typical denier behavior - wave aside sites that present data and rational discussion. Cherry pick data - "It's not happening in this small part of the globe, therefore it isn't happening anywhere."

Your childhood memories are not exactly scientifically objective data.

Climate scientists are scientists. Most probably are environmentalists because their data tells them that we are in extreme danger due to the environmental damage we are causing. The "pause" has been recognized, discussed, and explained.

There is no pause in global warming, there is a slowing in atmospheric warming. Warming has continued, with most of the heat going into the oceans.

http://skepticals...1998.htm

Now, you still have not answered my question. Why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
Elaboration -

http://chge.med.h...cle-coal
This regards only one specific fossil fuel, not "fossil fuels" (plural) in general. And, it is obviously biased, as there is no cost vs. benefit analysis.

Yes, it is - link was provided
Then why isn't it continuing to heat in light of the supposedly ever increasing pressure of rising CO2?

Typical denier behavior - wave aside sites that present data and rational discussion. Cherry pick data - "It's not happening in this small part of the globe, therefore it isn't happening anywhere."
Typical AGWite Nazi behavior. Wave aside objections to biased data and irrational hysterics. Cherry pick data - "There is a storm somewhere, it must be AGW! And there is a drought somewhere, it must be AGW!"

Your childhood memories are not exactly scientifically objective data.
"Scientific," perhaps not, but they are objective observations. The very same rocks and tide pools that were accessible when I was a child, are just as accessible today.

Climate scientists are scientists. Most probably are environmentalists because their data tells them that we are in extreme danger due to the environmental damage we are causing.
Actually (generally speaking), they are environmentalists first. "Scientists" generally choose their field of study based upon interests they developed prior to becoming recognized as scientists.

The "pause" has been recognized, discussed, and explained.
B.S.. It's regularly denied, and it's only called a "slowdown in warming" at best, when actually we've been cooling for more than a dozen years.

There is no pause in global warming, there is a slowing in atmospheric warming.
You just epitomized my last point.

Warming has continued, with most of the heat going into the oceans.
LOL. More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot.

http://skepticals...1998.htm
An article that claims continued warming in spite of the actual data saying otherwise, is obviously nothing more than a biased rant.

Now, you still have not answered my question. Why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?
That you didn't like my answer is not my concern. It remains my answer, nonetheless.

Bob, what is it that prevents you from objectively looking at and interpreting the data?

Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Why should I answer your question when you continue to dodge mine?

Why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
Why should I answer your question when you continue to dodge mine?
I have answered your questions.

Why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?
I'm being more honest with the facts.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Why should I answer your question when you continue to dodge mine?
Whay are you lying?

Why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?
I'm being more honest with the facts.
Bob_Wallace
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
You have not answered by question. You have told me nothing about you that would make me accept your analysis climate data over that of thousands of climate scientists.

You claim to be more "honest with the facts". I see nothing to back up the claim that you are more true to the facts than are climate scientists.

So I'll ask again, why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
You have not answered by question. You have told me nothing about you that would make me accept your analysis climate data over that of thousands of climate scientists.
What could I say that would accomplish this?

You claim to be more "honest with the facts". I see nothing to back up the claim that you are more true to the facts than are climate scientists.
So how much up to the moment data are they giving you (think on this awhile before responding)? I'm not talking about articles proclaiming warming is hiding here, or there. I'm asking, why aren't they showing contemporary temperature graphs? Why are they avoiding the empirical data?

So I'll ask again, why do you believe you know more than thousands of climate scientists?
Oh, I think they know ...but do they (and you) want to know?

Bob_Wallace
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
What might you say? You could describe your academic and research background which might establish your ability to pull the hundreds, thousands of research papers together in a coherent fashion.

That might be one way.

You know, the sort of background that all those thousands of climate scientists have.

Telling me that you've got the inside scoop on some great conspiracy to cover up the fact that the planet has stopped warming or that it was never warming or whatever it is that you believe, sorry, that's a fail.

That there could be a conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists, their graduate students, their brighter undergraduate students, their staff, and hundreds of scientific institutions, well, that's padded room and very long sleeve jacket territory.

Oh, up to date data? This is current through 4/18/2014.

http://www.ncdc.n...id=GHCND

One day behind current. Perhaps someone took the weekend off.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
What might you say? You could describe your academic and research background which might establish your ability to pull the hundreds, thousands of research papers together in a coherent fashion.

That might be one way.

You know, the sort of background that all those thousands of climate scientists have.
So you're saying you believe Judith Curry?

Telling me that you've got the inside scoop on some great conspiracy to cover up the fact that the planet has stopped warming or that it was never warming or whatever it is that you believe, sorry, that's a fail.
When did I supposedly do that?

That there could be a conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists, their graduate students, their brighter undergraduate students, their staff, and hundreds of scientific institutions, well, that's padded room and very long sleeve jacket territory.
I never suggested there is a conspiracy.

Oh, up to date data? This is current through 4/18/2014.

http://www.ncdc.n...id=GHCND

One day behind current. Perhaps someone took the weekend off.
It is a form page for U.S. regional weather and climate data. Is this what you intended me to see? What does it have to do with global warming? Is this the best you can do?

Bob_Wallace
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
Sorry, here's global.

http://data.giss....gistemp/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Sorry, here's global.

http://data.giss....gistemp/
Yeah? So? GISSTEMP shows cooling for the last dozen years too.

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
Yeah? So? GISSTEMP shows cooling for the last dozen years too.
http://www.woodfo....2/trend

How's this for a trick: Same data set, only this time instead of plotting one fit for 2002-2014.2, we break it into two lines, 2002-2008 and 2008-2014.2. Both of the plotted lines show warming, while the single line showed very slight (actually insignificant) cooling. So what's up with that? Is the single but insignificant cooling trend real, or are the twin significant warming trends real? Same exact data, just different window sizes for the fits(s).
http://www.woodfo....2/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Yeah? So? GISSTEMP shows cooling for the last dozen years too.
http://www.woodfo....2/trend
How's this for a trick: Same data set, only this time instead of plotting one fit for 2002-2014.2, we break it into two lines, 2002-2008 and 2008-2014.2. Both of the plotted lines show warming, while the single line showed very slight (actually insignificant) cooling. So what's up with that? Is the single but insignificant cooling trend real, or are the twin significant warming trends real? Same exact data, just different window sizes for the fits(s). http://www.woodfo....2/trend
As you stated, it's a trick.

Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. It's because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies!

Bob_Wallace
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
"Yeah? So? GISSTEMP shows cooling for the last dozen years too."

See, here's where you prove that you aren't operating at a level where your opinion should be considered.

You try to base a denier argument by looking at only troposphere temperature. You cherry-pick. You ignore changes in ocean temperature.

Here's what the people who know what they are talking about have to say about your bogus claim -

http://skepticals...2008.htm

And just for good measure -

http://skepticals...1998.htm
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
As you stated, it's a trick. Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)?

Hah! What a maroon. OK, riddle me this Batman: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
"Yeah? So? GISSTEMP shows cooling for the last dozen years too."

See, here's where you prove that you aren't operating at a level where your opinion should be considered.

You try to base a denier argument by looking at only troposphere temperature.
By definition, the atmosphere is the only part that really matters to this argument.

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

You cherry-pick.
No I don't. I simply use the latest available data.

You ignore changes in ocean temperature.
LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot. Funny thing, the oceans aren't warming.

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

Here's what the people who know what they are talking about have to say about your bogus claim -

http://skepticals...2008.htm

And just for good measure -

http://skepticals...1998.htm
LOL. "Skeptical Science" again. I think they call it that because they're "skeptical" of the actual science. They should change it to, "Science Deniers." LOL.

Anyway, this easily puts the kibosh on that hogwash; cooling since 1997:

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

But of course you will continue to deny and denounce the empirical data.

Too bad for you...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
As you stated, it's a trick. Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)?

Hah! What a maroon. OK, riddle me this Batman: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?
It's a time graph, hotshot. There is nothing simultaneous about it.

Seriously, are you really this ignorant? Maybe you should have concentrated more time on developing a knowledge base, rather than a vocabulary.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
ubamoron playing more of the same

WHACK-A-MOLE!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
ubamoron playing more of the same

WHACK-A-MOLE!
LOL. Maggnus has nothing to contribute, but his egomania forces him to do so anyway.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Actually, and is some seriousness, I can't get over how much of a snake in the grass, lying, backbiting denialist ubamoron is. There are some few here who actually try to some degree to avoid duplicity and contradictions, but not ole ubamoron! He'll say whatever he can to try and prop up his pretended misunderstandings and denialist cherry-picked garbage, then use the exact opposite arguments in another thread.

It is no wonder no one takes more than a few attempts to talk to him. Too caught up in denialism to understand how moronic he sounds, too moronic to understand the stupidity of his arguments.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Actually, and is some seriousness, I can't get over how much of a snake in the grass, lying, backbiting denialist ubamoron is. There are some few here who actually try to some degree to avoid duplicity and contradictions, but not ole ubamoron! He'll say whatever he can to try and prop up his pretended misunderstandings and denialist cherry-picked garbage, then use the exact opposite arguments in another thread.

It is no wonder no one takes more than a few attempts to talk to him. Too caught up in denialism to understand how moronic he sounds, too moronic to understand the stupidity of his arguments.
Poor AGWite Nazi Maggnus, cries bitter tears...

Sadly, Maggnus typifies the AGWite Nazi deviancy amplification spiral.

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
Actually, and is some seriousness, I can't get over how much of a snake in the grass, lying, backbiting denialist ubamoron is. There are some few here who actually try to some degree to avoid duplicity and contradictions, but not ole ubamoron! He'll say whatever he can to try and prop up his pretended misunderstandings and denialist cherry-picked garbage, then use the exact opposite arguments in another thread.

Best post of the day!

It is no wonder no one takes more than a few attempts to talk to him. Too caught up in denialism to understand how moronic he sounds, too moronic to understand the stupidity of his arguments.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
It is no wonder no one takes more than a few attempts to talk to him. Too caught up in denialism to understand how moronic he sounds, too moronic to understand the stupidity of his arguments.
There's no real point in arguing with AGWwite zealots anyway. They are demonstrably terrible human beings. Just look at all their desperate, childish insults!

It appears the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies likely induces a defensive stress hysteria which subsequently traps them in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against them, the worse they get as human beings!

Sadly, Vietvet typifies the deviancy amplification spiral.

Bob_Wallace
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
This site needs its own Ko-ko if it wishes to be a place where science can be discussed.

rockwolf1000
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
@uba
"There's no real point in arguing with AGWwite zealots anyway. They are demonstrably terrible human beings. Just look at all their desperate, childish insults."

Indeed. I suggest you move along and exert your efforts elsewhere.

Bye!
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2014
Me:
OK, riddle me this Batman: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?

uba:
It's a time graph, hotshot. There is nothing simultaneous about it.

You have a TIME graph and I have a TIME graph, both covering the same period of TIME. My TIME graph says the temperature is always going up, your TIME graph says the temperature is always going down. The two graphs combined imply that the temperature is going both up & down at the same TIME (hint: "simultaneously" means "at the same TIME"). So, hotshot, try to get past kindergarten and answer the question: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2014
There's no real point in arguing with AGWwite zealots anyway. They are demonstrably terrible human beings. Just look at all their desperate, childish insults!

No, it's just that the poor dears are still trying to engage you in an intelligent conversation. Hah! Fat chance that will ever happen. Now my goal is different. You are a wondrously stupid & demonstrably terrible human being yourself, and I glory in the chance to allow you to prove it to the world over & over & over & over again with your own self-executing words. Have a nice day, Dude (or Dudette, as the case may be).
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2014
I glory in the chance to allow you to prove it to the world over & over & over & over again with your own self-executing words. Have a nice day, Dude (or Dudette, as the case may be)
@Tim Thompson
you're not the only one. there are MANY watching your conversations and enjoying the heck out of them

I would also like to invite you to enjoy or participate in the discussions of "The Green House properties of CO2" as well as IR radiation found in the following thread : http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

I know that you've already addressed some of this (and I referenced Alkie to your conversation) but the antagonist The Alchemist likely believed it trolling at the time. I don't know for sure. thermodynamics is acting as protagonist for Science or (as ALkie puts it) pro AGW.

I am sure any comments you make will be much appreciated given your expertise and knowledge. Thanks
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
Me:
OK, riddle me this Batman: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?
uba:
It's a time graph, hotshot. There is nothing simultaneous about it.
You have a TIME graph and I have a TIME graph, both covering the same period of TIME. My TIME graph says the temperature is always going up, your TIME graph says the temperature is always going down. The two graphs combined imply that the temperature is going both up & down at the same TIME (hint: "simultaneously" means "at the same TIME"). So, hotshot, try to get past kindergarten and answer the question: How is it physically possible for the physical temperature to physically go up & down, simultaneously?
This is the fallacy. There is an implied vertical drop in temperature between your two trend lines. All three trends from your graph (two shown and one implied) average out to the exact trend mine depicts – which overall, is a slight cooling.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
There's no real point in arguing with AGWwite zealots anyway. They are demonstrably terrible human beings. Just look at all their desperate, childish insults!
No, it's just that the poor dears are still trying to engage you in an intelligent conversation. Hah! Fat chance that will ever happen. Now my goal is different. You are a wondrously stupid & demonstrably terrible human being yourself, and I glory in the chance to allow you to prove it to the world over & over & over & over again with your own self-executing words. Have a nice day, Dude (or Dudette, as the case may be).
Here, Tim Thompson has exemplified the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

If Tim Thompson was really concerned about global warming, why is it he is not happy the globe is cooling?

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

Obviously, Tim Thompson doesn't really care about the environment. as he fights tooth and claw to hide this fact.

So, what is his real agenda then?

Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
ubavontuba links this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.2/to:2014.2/plot/rss/from:1997.2/to:2014.2/trend
But does not address this:-
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Where is your metric ubavontuba ?

Why instead does ubavontuba attack Tim Thompson guessing of his 'care' for environment ?

Is this not the strategy of someone who has no foundation for their position AND proves they have never studied mathematics or physics, especially of the key aspects of climate change:-

1. Rise in CO2 linked to industrial emissions & still increasing
2. Thermal properties of greenhouse gasses (eg. CO2)
3. Properties of water, especially "Latent Heat of Fusion", absorption

Why does ubavontuba go to so much trouble to show he hasn't bothered to gain a foundational understanding in mathematics - especially how to interpret graphs & related probability & statistics ?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2014
ubavontuba proves he has no understanding of outliers
This is the fallacy. There is an implied vertical drop in temperature between your two trend lines. All three trends from your graph (two shown and one implied) average out to the exact trend mine depicts – which overall, is a slight cooling.
And ubavontuba proves he has no knowledge of probability & statistics & is unable to appreciate the balance of probability when ubavontuba has previously accepted there was a warming.

Why is this ?

Does ubavontuba have a basic education in mathematics & physics ?

It seems not.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
ubavontuba links this
http://www.woodfo....2/trend
But does not address this:-
http://www.woodfo....1/trend
What's to address?

Where is your metric ubavontuba ?

Why instead does ubavontuba attack Tim Thompson guessing of his 'care' for environment ?

Is this not the strategy of someone who has no foundation for their position AND proves they have never studied mathematics or physics, especially of the key aspects of climate change:-
LOL. This is funny, coming from you. Can you say, "Chatterbot."

1. Rise in CO2 linked to industrial emissions & still increasing
2. Thermal properties of greenhouse gasses (eg. CO2)
3. Properties of water, especially "Latent Heat of Fusion", absorption

Why does ubavontuba go to so much trouble to show he hasn't bothered to gain a foundational understanding in mathematics - especially how to interpret graphs & related probability & statistics?
Hand-waving nonsense. Either the globe is heating, or it isn't. Saying it should for reason "X" is not the same as proving that it is.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
ubavontuba proves he has no understanding of outliers
This is the fallacy. There is an implied vertical drop in temperature between your two trend lines. All three trends from your graph (two shown and one implied) average out to the exact trend mine depicts – which overall, is a slight cooling.
And ubavontuba proves he has no knowledge of probability & statistics & is unable to appreciate the balance of probability when ubavontuba has previously accepted there was a warming.
"Graphs that show a trend of data should illustrate the trend accurately in its context, rather than illustrating the trend in an exaggerated or sensationalized way. In short, don't draw misleading graphs."

http://en.wikiped...Accuracy

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
@ubavontuba,
Please try to gain some basic physics understanding, its obvious from your obtuse posts which seem designed to muddy the waters and avoid core issues, especially so since you have already accepted the climate was previously warming but, don't seem to understand the probability issue re "outliers", this proves you have negligible formal understanding of maths or physics, start please by understanding what is meant by a closed vs an open system in respect of climate:-
http://www.ametso.../ccs.pdf

Rather than shift position, just answer if you made the respective claims BECAUSE you imply such claims by your unfortunate use of language - it is as if you are trying to obfuscate & make it rather more difficulty to pin down a position.

Arbitrary implications does not make for mature dialectic, do you possibly understand the attention such a topic deserves ?
Tim Thompson
4 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
Uba:
All three trends from your graph (two shown and one implied) average out to the exact trend mine depicts – which overall, is a slight cooling.

Really?
Uba plot: http://www.woodfo....2/trend
Tim plot: http://www.woodfo....2/trend

On Uba plot, one single fitted line, the end point is about 0.2 degrees below the first point. On Tim plot the end point of the 2nd line is about 0.3 degrees higher than the first point of the first line. Furthermore, the first line shows a rise of about 0.3 degrees, while the second line shows a rise of about 1.0 degrees, and the negative gap between them is about 1.0 degrees, which unsurprisingly adds up to +0.3 degrees (all estimated measures by using a millimeter ruler on the computer screen). Uba's claim is falsified (yet again).
Tim Thompson
4 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
uba:
If Tim Thompson was really concerned about global warming, why is it he is not happy the globe is cooling?
http://www.woodfo....2/trend


No, the globe is warming:

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

I win with 3 plots that say warming to one uba plot that says cooling.