Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

Another wake-up call for the deniers.

Why is it that the moron AGW crisis peddlers wait until winter is setting in to tell us the ice is gone? It is MINUS 50ish in the arctic when these dopes peddle the alarm that the ice is gone.

School is in session. The young, the lonely the impressionable heads full of dreams are now being manipulated.

It is MINUS 50 DEGREES in the ARCTIC when these idiots tell us the ice is gone.

==

“Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’- is churned out in all its forms.

As ‘the ice melts’

and ‘sea level rises,’

the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!

Without realizing it,

or perhaps without wishing to,

the average citizen

is bamboozled,

lobotomized,

lulled into mindless ac­ceptance....

Climatologist
Dr. Marcel Leroux,
former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon,
Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality?- The Erring Ways of Climatology.

==

“The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

Dr. Kelvin Kemm,
formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimump...

"Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). "

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008."

NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said,“We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”

JRS wrote:

Why is it that the moron AGW crisis peddlers wait until winter is setting in to tell us the ice is gone?

It is October when the minimum is set and we can see if there is any REAL decline this year, rather than variable areal measures during the full dark/cold of winter when ice doesn't MATTER much since it doesn't affect solar insolation for climate and shipping is not likely to happen even after the summers are 'ice free'.

JRS wrote:

It is MINUS 50ish in the arctic when these dopes peddle the alarm that the ice is gone.

Did you miss the reference to 2030? Your reading skills are so bad they cause you to post complete crap for 'red herring issues' that are caused by YOUR cluelessness.

Not that I agree to the 2030 figure. I suspect that it will take up to 2040. While I may be cautious about the RATE of decline, I certainly see no serious debate about the eventual OUTCOME.

JRS wrote:

School is in session. The young, the lonely the impressionable heads full of dreams are now being manipulated.
[QUOTE who="JRS"]
Why is it that the moron AGW crisis peddlers wait until winter is setting in to tell us the ice is gone?

It is October when the minimum is set and we can see if there is any REAL decline this year, rather than variable areal measures during the full dark/cold of winter when ice doesn't MATTER much since it doesn't affect solar insolation for climate and shipping is not likely to happen even after the summers are 'ice free'.

JRS wrote:

It is MINUS 50ish in the arctic when these dopes peddle the alarm that the ice is gone.

Did you miss the reference to 2030?

JRS wrote:

School is in session. The young, the lonely the impressionable heads full of dreams are now being manipulated.

Ah, you aren't that young or impressionable. More like close minded and dim.

JRS wrote:

It is MINUS 50 DEGREES in the ARCTIC when these idiots tell us the ice is gone.

That makes no sense. Where in the arctic? When in the arctic? And the decine in the arctic ice is steady and not debatable. It WILL be gone if AGW continues. And it will..

JRS wrote:

==
“Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’- is churned out in all its forms.

Facts don't change to suit you. Yes. Every day you hear the facts and every day you take a trip to Uranus to avoid hearing it.

Well, stupidity is a human right. We can't enforce either intelligence or education as everyone is free to be either stupid or ignorant. Some are both..

Wouldn't it be easy to estimate the multi year ice by the min sea ice extent of the previous year.

Ice thickness would be more usefull as icebreakers are effective only in ice less than 3 meters thick.

Does anyone know if there is historic arctic sea ice volume data?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimump...
"Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). "
"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."
Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008."
NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said,“We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”

Please exlain why you do not consider the last few years of arctic sea ice data to be "noise".

while the jury is still out on man made global warming, since most of the world governments believe it to be the case, the big questions are how governments are planning to spend their citizen's money. the gore/UN model suggests governments spend 800 billion over the next ninety years to mitigate carbon emissions. even the IPCC says that this will slow warming by only 0.3 degrees. in other words, a ridiculous return on investment. you can do a lot more good for people for a lot less money.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Please exlain why you do not consider the last few years of arctic sea ice data to be "noise".

Any year or 'few years' is noise. See.

http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3...

Don't blame the messenger. I was just pointing out that the La_Nina of the last two years seems to have increased the second year ice levels while the real multiyear ice declines still. I expect a strong decline during the coming El_Nino cycle

This is data, not analysis so 'noise' is not in context. You have to define the SIGNAL before you can isolate what part of the data is 'noise' and how large the error bars are, etc.

GoodNewz wrote:

while the jury is still out on man made global warming,

your imaginary 'jury' may be out, but the science is IN.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Any year or 'few years' is noise. See.
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3...
Don't blame the messenger. I was just pointing out that the La_Nina of the last two years seems to have increased the second year ice levels while the real multiyear ice declines still. I expect a strong decline during the coming El_Nino cycle
This is data, not analysis so 'noise' is not in context. You have to define the SIGNAL before you can isolate what part of the data is 'noise' and how large the error bars are, etc.

So you are saying you don't have enough data to define the signal, but yet you use this signal to make a prediction about an ice free arctic in 30 years.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are saying you don't have enough data to define the signal, but yet you use this signal to make a prediction about an ice free arctic in 30 years.

Try the reference again. It has lots of pictures, so you shouldn't have to strain too hard... really not much harder to read than your Playboys..

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Try the reference again. It has lots of pictures, so you shouldn't have to strain too hard... really not much harder to read than your Playboys..

Nice try but you are now in a corner.

If the last few years of ice volume data is "noise" then you can't use them for a conclusion. If there is not enough data to determine if they are "noise" then you still can't use them for a conclusion.

If on the other hand you would like to now consider a few recent years of data to draw a conclusion, you need to also use the recent sea ice extent data and recent temperature data that you have previously labeled "noise".

Which is it?

Fair Game wrote:

Another wake-up call for the *******.

Why is it a wake up call for sceptics, it's just another report by another, "expert."

Roald Amundsen made the first recorded navigation of the NW passage in 1906, quite a while before glowbull whining.
Henry Larsen made the trip both ways in 1942.
Many have made the trip since.

Anybody see the show Ice Road Truckers?...yeah that's right, ICE road truckers...lol.

PatienceThrowsOffThe Cops wrote:

Nice try but you are now in a corner.

Deniers can't corner pi in a square root......

PatienceThrowsOffThe Cops wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try but you are now in a corner.
If the last few years of ice volume data is "noise" then you can't use them for a conclusion. If there is not enough data to determine if they are "noise" then you still can't use them for a conclusion.
If on the other hand you would like to now consider a few recent years of data to draw a conclusion, you need to also use the recent sea ice extent data and recent temperature data that you have previously labeled "noise".
Which is it?

Half the Arctic sea ice has vanished in the past 50 years. If that isn't evidence enough for you, nothing will be.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it a wake up call for sceptics, it's just another report by another, "expert."
Roald Amundsen made the first recorded navigation of the NW passage in 1906, quite a while before glowbull whining.

It took him three years in a small ship; last year two tankers sailed though without the help of an icebreaker in a couple of months.

Roald didn't have GPS.:)

Come on, kiddo, that was over 100 years ago, times change, a lot of water has passed under the bridge and ice has melted.

Earthling wrote:

...ice has melted.

Exactly.

"[I]ce covering the Arctic Ocean has effectively vanished," isn't quite true, it's not magic, it's calld melting. Don't worry though, winter is coming, water will freeze and the ice will "reappear".