Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule

[bigfish]

If I post links to well atended intellegent design confrences will you give up on evolution?

david, I have no idea what you are blathering about above, but I do know that your statement that there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming, is false.

 

[david dissadent]

david, I have no idea what you are blathering about above, but I do know that your statement that there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming, is false.

You have posted the fact that people can orginise a conference of people who challange the idea of anthromorphic climate change as proof there is no consensus. I am pointing out that other rock solid scientific ideas also has conferences with a couple of hundred people attending them. The fact there is some debate does not prove there is no general consensus.

Its a general pattern of you cherry picking evidence that backs up what you believe. Anecdotes about ships (that were pretty well blown out of the water) to disporve the hard data posted here that there has been a major collapse on the ice coverage in the arctic ocean.

Hell you have posted a paper confirming what many people expected that at high altitudes there would be an increase of ice coverage as it is to high for the ice to melt and perticipation is increasing...... yet, and ignore that the very paper you post partly confirms that at altitudes low enough there is significant ice melt.



So has there been a significant drop in ice coverage over the arctic ocean this year, yea or nay?

 

[dash_two]

Stop moaning about cabals here, bigfish.

You crave attention and the feeling of being a genius among uncomprehending pygmies - the big fish in the small pond - and you get those by pushing contrarian viewpoints.

I bet you've backed other off-the-wall positions before global warming came into your sights, and in due course you'll move onto some other lonely crusade.

 

[kerplunk]

Sure, all of the vessels encountered problems along the way, but is it any different today? has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems, do you know?

Here ya go (sorry it's from the lie machine)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6999078.stm

Mr Semotiuk, who has now signed off for the winter, told the BBC News website that a third boat this season - a lightweight catamaran crewed by a French and Belgian team - had just successfully navigated the full length of the 5,150km (3,200-mile) waterway.

This is the first time the journey has been completed entirely by sail, says Mr Semotiuk. Not so long ago, he says this journey would have been impossible because of the ice.

Roger Swanson, a 76-year-old pig farmer turned yachtsman from Minnesota, completed the journey last week after just 45 days.

Speaking to journalists, he described the journey as smooth sailing.

"There was hardly any ice," Mr Swanson told the Wall Street Journal.

A father-and-son British team also completed the journey this year.

"One of the British sailors, James Allison, said he felt a bit of a fraud after completing the trip because there wasn't any ice," said Mr Semotiuk.

"He's correct to the point that there really wasn't any challenge, so to speak, other than the cold."

 

[bigfish]

Here ya go (sorry it's from the lie machine)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6999078.stm

Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html

 

[bigfish]

You have posted the fact that people can orginise a conference of people who challange the idea of anthromorphic climate change as proof there is no consensus. I am pointing out that other rock solid scientific ideas also has conferences with a couple of hundred people attending them. The fact there is some debate does not prove there is no general consensus. Its a general pattern of you cherry picking evidence that backs up what you believe.

I posted two links up. One to the findings of an 120 person international seminar on climate at a reputable Swedish scientific institute last year that you've "cherry picked" to respond to here, and a second to a paper, "Consensus? What Consensus?, by Christopher Monkton, that pretty much drives a coach and horses through your statement that there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming, and which you have studiously ignored.

A question for you, david - Can you provide the forum with any concrete evidence - such as a survey of scientific opinion, for example - that is capable of supporting your otherwise vacuous assertion of a "general consensus" on AGW?

 

[free spirit]

Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html

as usual with your links, things aren't quite as you portray them... none of those four cases having anything to do with BBC news, one being about the naming of the blue peter cat, the others being "the Tom Robinson Show and the Clare McDonnell Show on BBC 6 Music, and Film Cafe on the BBC Asian Network."

are you seriously trying to say that these 4 incidents mean the BBC must be lying in the news report that was linked to, which clearly answers your question... 'has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems?'

Nope, you're just sending out a load of chaffe as per usual.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I bet you've backed other off-the-wall positions before global warming came into your sights, and in due course you'll move onto some other lonely crusade.

He's second only to Jazzz in his off-the-wallness.

 

[kyser_soze]

And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions.

Yes, these would be about telephone phone in polls, not newsgathering. Not really comparing like with like, whether the decision that 'socks' was a more appropriate name than 'cookie' for a kitten with whether or not people are sailing the NW passage...

 

[bigfish]

as usual with your links, things aren't quite as you portray them... none of those four cases having anything to do with BBC news....

I'm deeply moved by your stoic defense of Auntie, but you're confounding the symptoms with the disease itself.

Snorenight anchor, Jeremy Paxman, stated in a recent Guardian interview that when it comes to global warming the BBC "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". Astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn, who produces long range weather forecasts that are generally far more accurate than those produced by the UK Met Office, and at a fraction of the cost, holds a similar view to my own. He describes the BBC as "a Global warming hysteria brainwashing machine," adding that "it is totally unacceptable that their web site now carries floods of carefully prepared Global Warming pseudo-science." He notes further that "the BBC and certain newspapers ... are the chief propagators of a state sponsored faith system based more on science fiction than science fact which like those under various totalitarian regimes changes the meaning of words in order to deceive the public. The ‘Global warmers’ replaced the term ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’ because there isn’t global warming anymore and the phrase ‘climate change’ means they can claim any extreme weather event which happens naturally as evidence of their barmy theory."

are you seriously trying to say that these 4 incidents mean the BBC must be lying in the news report that was linked to, which clearly answers your question... 'has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems?'

The BBC lies - of that you may be certain. However, that does not mean the BBC lies all of the time or that it is lying now in this particular instance about some vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage. In any event, low sea ice this year at the North Pole cannot be blamed on "anthropogenic global warming" simply because this year sea ice at the South Pole grew considerably and was accompanied by record low temperatures throughout the Southern hemisphere. Ergo, no global warming.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nope, you're just sending out a load of chaffe as per usual.

You know what interests me?

Who "bigfish" is flacking for, and why.

 

[Jonti]

FWIW, my impression is that BF just processes text, without understanding it. Very wierd.

But, cuo bono? Adding to the confusion generally benefits the already established: I guess that's why the chaos merchants are so annoying.

 

[dash_two]

The BBC lies - of that you may be certain. However, that does not mean the BBC lies all of the time or that it is lying now in this particular instance about some vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage.

Backtracking.

 

[free spirit]

In any event, low sea ice this year at the North Pole cannot be blamed on "anthropogenic global warming" simply because this year sea ice at the South Pole grew considerably and was accompanied by record low temperatures throughout the Southern hemisphere. Ergo, no global warming.

BBC News >>> There's a drought in Africa...

Bigfish looks out of the window, see's it's raining concludes the BBC must be lying

 

[dash_two]

Bigfish gets some of his stories off 'Greenie Watch', which is run by an Australian called John Ray. Ray also helped set up a site called 'Majority Rights', which is very interested in such issues as 'ethnic genetic interests' and how thick Africans are supposed to be. Nice company to keep.

 

[Balbi]

Important question.

Why the fuck would anyone want to lie about a catastrophe of the proportions of that suggested by the concept of climate change? I mean - where's the real dollar gain there. It's not like 'TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DON'T TAKE AWAY YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, TERRORISTS HATE CIVIL LIBERTIES - IF WE TAKE THEM AWAY THINGS WILL BE BETTER'.

I mean, honestly.

'THE ICE IS ALL FUCKING MELTING, LIKE - SERIOUSLY. IT'S ALL FUCKING GOING. WE HAVE TO...ER....SEND $500 DOLLARS TO THIS ADDRESS AND WE'LL MAKE SOME MORE ICE...ER....YEAH.....YEAH. $500.'

 

[mauvais]

Important question.

Why the fuck would anyone want to lie about a catastrophe of the proportions of that suggested by the concept of climate change? I mean - where's the real dollar gain there. It's not like 'TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DON'T TAKE AWAY YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, TERRORISTS HATE CIVIL LIBERTIES - IF WE TAKE THEM AWAY THINGS WILL BE BETTER'.

I mean, honestly.

'THE ICE IS ALL FUCKING MELTING, LIKE - SERIOUSLY. IT'S ALL FUCKING GOING. WE HAVE TO...ER....SEND $500 DOLLARS TO THIS ADDRESS AND WE'LL MAKE SOME MORE ICE...ER....YEAH.....YEAH. $500.'

DEAR MISTER BALBISAUR,

IT IS WITH GREAT TIDINGS AND ALSO SOME MODERATE GLADNESS AND ALSO A PEN THAT I AM WRITING TO YOU ON THIS GLORIOUS DAY. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A GREATLY TRUSTOWTHYR MAN IN YOUR COUNTRY. I PERSONALY THOUGHT YOU WERE BEST ON THE GENERATION GAME BEFROE THAT TWAT DAVIDSON.

SO I GUESS I HAVE A BUSINSEE DEAL JUST FOR YOU. AS YOU KNOW ALL THE POLAR ICE IS MELTING GLOBAL WARMING AN TING, AND THIS HAS PRESENTED US WITH AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY. YOU SEE MY UNCLE WAS A VEY RICH MAN CALLED CAPAPTAIN BIRDSAYE AND WHEN HE DIED HE BURIED ALL HIS WONGA AT THE NORTH POLE JUST FOR A LAUGH REALLY. FUCK YOU UNCLE B.

NOW ANYWAY IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SEND ME ONLY SEVERNTY THOSAND OF YOUR POUNDS I WILL USE THEM TO BUY A COAT AND SOME GLOVES AND MAYBE EVEN A HAT MADE OF ACTUAL BADGER. AND THEN WE CAN GO THERE AND SHARE IN HIS WEALTH TOGETHER LIKE A PAIR OF GREEDY FROSTBITTEN GAYS.

TA VERY MUCH LOVE,

DR UKELELE, FLAT 1, NIGERIA

PS DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIEMACHINE. I AM SUPER TRUTHSOME RIGHT!

 

[Balbi]

Have you been taking grammar lessons from bigfish?

 

[rich!]

More on the ice caps:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm

Record lows.

People who funded the research:
http://nsidc.org/about/sponsors.html

 

[bigfish]

More on the ice caps:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm

That's more like it from the lie machine.

Headline: Ice withdrawal 'shatters record'

Nowhere does in the report mention that the "record" is ONLY 28 years long.

The report breathlessly tells us that if what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is projected "on a global scale" i.e. if what's happening in the NH was to happen simultaneously in the Southern hemisphere, then "the Earth would lose a major reflective surface and so absorb more solar energy, potentially accelerating climatic change across the world."

However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction. It's been an especially harsh winter in the SH with new low temperature and snow records set in Africa, Australia and South America. Sea ice area at the South pole is close to surpassing its previous historic maximum and was even reported to have done so at one point.

According to NASA/GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957.

 

[Signal 11]

The report breathlessly tells us that if what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is projected "on a global scale" i.e. if what's happening in the NH was to happen simultaneously in the Southern hemisphere

The phrase "on a global scale" as used in the article is referring to the effect of the loss of arctic ice. You are the one who is fraudulently trying to bring the antarctic into it, as if the ice loss in the arctic would have no effect unless it also happened in the antarctic.

However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction.

It doesn't omit to mention it. It states quite clearly that...

In contrast to the Arctic, the extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has come close this year to breaking its satellite-monitored record for maximum area of 16.03 million sq km.

 

[kerplunk]

And the article clearly states they are SATELLITE measurements so you'd have to be some kind of desperate spin-merchant to make something out of the fact that the article fails to mention 1979 as the start date.

And the shattered artic sea ice extent record definitely ISN'T matched in the opposite direction by the antarctic.


Bigfish shoots at the BBC 'lie machine' and scores in his own net again.

 

[bigfish]

And the article clearly states they are SATELLITE measurements so you'd have to be some kind of desperate spin-merchant to make something out of the fact that the article fails to mention 1979 as the start date.

The fact remains the record is ONLY 28 years long.

How far did sea ice retreat during the MWP do you think when Vikings farmed on the West coast of Greenland and the Arctic tree-line was 80 kilometers further North than it is today? How far did sea ice retreat during the Holocene Climate Optimum when the tree-line was 400 kilometers further North than it is today? What happened to the polar bears?

Any idea?

 

[bigfish]

Climate Corrections

By Syun-Ichi Akasofu

...
In understanding the present warming trend, it is absolutely essential to learn more about climate change in the distant past -- or at least during the last 1,000 years. But many scientists, particularly younger ones, prefer to work only with data collected after 1975, when satellite data became available. With only 30 years worth of data, their results are little more than climatological snapshots of what is really a slow, long-term process. The latest accurate satellite images of sea ice distribution in the Arctic Ocean today can be obtained by clicking on a computer screen; but it is impossible to obtain such quality data for periods before 1975.

It is for this reason that only a minority of scientists are studying natural climate change, including multi-decadal oscillations and centurial climate change, which is the true realm of climatology. These areas have not been priorities for the IPCC.

They should be. During winter, England's Thames River would once freeze solid. This occurred on and off between 1400 and 1800 during a period called the "Little Ice Age" when temperatures dropped by as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius, which came after the medieval warm period around 1000. The anomaly of the Little Ice Age corrected itself, of course, through something called rebounding. The rebounding rate is estimated at 0.5 degrees Celsius per century. Since our present warming rate is roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius per century, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 may represent only a 0.1 degree Celsius increase in temperature over the course of a century.

There is no doubt that global warming is in progress. But much of it can be attributed to the rebounding effect from the Little Ice Age. Recovering from a cool period is, of course, warming -- but it is nothing to panic about. Ice core data from the Greenland ice sheet show many periodic warming and cooling periods during the last 10,000 years. The present warming phase is far from the warmest.

Scientists have no clear knowledge of the cause of the Little Ice Age and of the subsequent rebound; or of the Big Ice Age; or of a warm period when the Arctic Ocean had no ice; or of the medieval warming period. In fact, IPCC scientists do not understand the causes of the rapid increase of temperature from 1910 to 1945; or the decrease from 1945 to 1975, when CO2 levels were rising. Without understanding these recent changes, it is premature for the IPCC to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of the last 30 years of global warming.

Mr. Akasofu is the former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska. This essay is adapted from an article appearing in the Sept. 2007 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review.

Subscription required: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118954539363624201.html

 

[Balbi]

The fact remains the record is ONLY 28 years long.

That's the fault of that lazy bastard Goddard

 

[kerplunk]

The fact remains the record is ONLY 28 years long.

Sure but also the fact is that you diverted the thread to divert away from your earlier factual bollox and now your 'lie machine' diversion has also been shown to be bollox

How far did sea ice retreat during the MWP do you think when Vikings farmed on the West coast of Greenland and the Arctic tree-line was 80 kilometers further North than it is today? How far did sea ice retreat during the Holocene Climate Optimum when the tree-line was 400 kilometers further North than it is today? What happened to the polar bears?

Any idea?

If all else fails drag up the medieval denialists period...

 

[dash_two]

It's a good idea not to trust the BBC - Bigfish's Bullshit on Climate.

 

[dash_two]

For example, he claims:

However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction. It's been an especially harsh winter in the SH with new low temperature and snow records set in Africa, Australia and South America. Sea ice area at the South pole is close to surpassing its previous historic maximum and was even reported to have done so at one point.

One would guess the sea ice area at the South Pole to be precisely zero, as it resides roughly in the middle of a certain land mass known as Antarctica.

Also, there is a conflation of 'Southern Hemisphere' with 'South Pole', reinforced later by a cut 'n' paste of a graph showing winter temperatures from the South Pole. But why only the winter temperatures? And why only the South Pole, when there are several weather stations in Antarctica?

Unsurprisingly, a more complex pattern emerges when one looks at the temperature trends presented by the British Antarctic Survey from 18 different stations. Some stations do indeed show a cooling trend over the last few decades, including the one at the South Pole. But others show a warming trend, notably around the Antarctic Peninsula, and still others show no appreciable difference.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/climate/surfacetemps/

A graphical summary of 'Annual and seasonal temperature trends around Antarctica for 1951-2006' is shown in this PDF file (annual mean temperature changes are the left-most column in each station's little bar chart):

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2006.col.pdf

 

[bigfish]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2164776,00.html

Greenland is starting to accelerate in its melting. This is wide open to interperatation as to how quickly it can melt. But however quick or slow, it has begun.

Here's another interpretation of how quickly Greenland ice can melt, by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion.

Professor Mörner has published a booklet entitled "The Greatest Lie Ever Told," to refute claims of catastrophic sea level rise. "When we were coming out of the last ice age, huge ice sheets were melting rapidly and the sea level rose at an average of 1 metre per century. If the Greenland ice sheet stated to melt at the same rate - which is unlikely - sea level would rise by less than 100 mm - 4 inches per century. So the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen."

The booklet refers to observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0708/S00012.htm

 

[longdog]

Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html

You're a fucking fruitcake.

What the fuck are you dribbling on about?

Because the BBC rigged a poll to name a kitteh on a kid's program they must be lying if they report something that you don't like?

I think the mercury in your fillings has stopped your tinfoil hat working