Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
It has been the slowest July Arctic melt in the eight year JAXA record.
Ice extent has declined at less than half the rate of 2007, and total ice loss has been more than 200,000 km² less than the previous low in 2004.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/jaxa_july_1-17_ice_melt.png
Ice extent has declined at less than half the rate of 2007, and total ice loss has been more than 200,000 km² less than the previous low in 2004.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/jaxa_july_1-17_ice_melt.png
Last edited:
Not true Anna, I can read.
Ohhh.. Science!
Well, that's different then seeing how it's your science therefore all other opinion or (dare I say) science is irrelevant.
You should call up the world governments and tell 'em that you have the "science" that is conclusive.
(Perhaps they didn't get your earlier memo or read your posts, eh?)
Unlike yourself wifey, not only can I read - I can also comprehend.
Maybe get started with hooked on phonics, that might help.
Ohhhh... A YouTube video I'll bet.. Well, it must be conclusively factual.... No other opinion or science needed - Anna found a YouTube video that explains all!
Yawn... See above
Congratulations, you've just learned what environmental conservation and stewardship is all about.... here's a hint though.. That isn't the same as the alarmist position on anthropogenic global warming.
Really. I had no doubt. Unfortunately, I was referring to your comment about wading in before you know what you are talking about. But, another bad spin on your part.
Sorry. It isn't "my science". It is just science. Just because I link to it does not make it mine. Not that you'd recognize good science anyway. You haven't so far.
The evidence says not.
Well, you can try anyway. There's no harm in that.
Sorry. It was neither youtube (evident just by reading the link) nor was it posted by me at first. Petros posted it first.
*shrugs* Remain ignorant then, see if I care.
wow This is the most exaggerated spin yet. and you even omitted quoting half my comment. roflmao
First we had a record amout of thin Antarctic ice and now very cold temps in SA; probably it's just thin cold temps.
Arctic Sea Ice Taking a Turn for the Worse
The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Co., has posted an update on the state of Arctic ice, saying that current conditions point to a bad year, but not a record-breaker.
"If the daily rate of decline this August follows the average August rate of decline for 1979 to 2000, the daily sea ice minimum in September would be 5.00 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles), considerably higher than the record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) observed for September 16, 2007."
But if you look at the current graph, the ice is NOT following "the average August rate of decline." And if you look closely at the inset illustration showing the distribution of multi-year ice, and then read the NSIDC analysis under the heading, "Older, thicker ice melting in the southern Beaufort Sea," you will see the threat of long-term ice collapse.
The illustration shows a significant sprinkling of old ice that has been distributed into highly exposed and relatively warm areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. That ice is likely to melt in the coming weeks, reducing the gross amount of resilient old ice and making the entire ice cover more fragile in coming years.
For those of you who haven't discovered it already, the NSIDC link above will take you to a graph that is updated daily - providing an interesting, if slightly unsettling stop for anyone interested in indicators of the state of the climate.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Co., has posted an update on the state of Arctic ice, saying that current conditions point to a bad year, but not a record-breaker.
"If the daily rate of decline this August follows the average August rate of decline for 1979 to 2000, the daily sea ice minimum in September would be 5.00 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles), considerably higher than the record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) observed for September 16, 2007."
But if you look at the current graph, the ice is NOT following "the average August rate of decline." And if you look closely at the inset illustration showing the distribution of multi-year ice, and then read the NSIDC analysis under the heading, "Older, thicker ice melting in the southern Beaufort Sea," you will see the threat of long-term ice collapse.
The illustration shows a significant sprinkling of old ice that has been distributed into highly exposed and relatively warm areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. That ice is likely to melt in the coming weeks, reducing the gross amount of resilient old ice and making the entire ice cover more fragile in coming years.
For those of you who haven't discovered it already, the NSIDC link above will take you to a graph that is updated daily - providing an interesting, if slightly unsettling stop for anyone interested in indicators of the state of the climate.
How's the antarctic ice keeping up these days?
You ought to consider discussing this issue with Petros, he certainly has a unique view; enough to confound your buddy.
You ought to consider discussing this issue with Petros, he certainly has a unique view; enough to confound your buddy.
So what?
International Scientists Confirm Climate Change is "Undeniable"
An international team of climate scientists led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed that climate change is "undeniable" and clearly driven by the "human fingerprints" of greenhouse gas emissions. The findings are based on new data that was not reviewed during the most recent 2007 report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Financial Times reported today that the NOAA study drew on 11 different indicators of climate, and "found that each one pointed to a world that was warming owing to the influence of greenhouse gases."
The scientists confirmed that seven of the indicators are rising, including air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth’s surface. Four other indicators were declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and stratospheric temperatures.
The Financial Times quotes Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, stating:
“The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases. The fingerprints are clear. The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”
Glaringly obvious, unless you are a climate skeptic who denies the facts in favor of touting manufactured scandals like "Climategate" - a mythical tale ginned up by the climate denial machine to further confuse the public about the real dangers of climate change.
Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, told the Financial Times:
“This confirms that while all of this [Climategate] was going on, the earth was continuing to warm. It shows that Climategate was a distraction, because it took the focus off what the science actually says.”
That is exactly what the denial machine intended, and it worked for quite a while, with many reporters writing about the private emails of climate scientists stolen from the University of East Anglia last winter. But when the whole episode was exposed as a baseless attack on scientists that does nothing to undermine scientific knowledge about the real threat of climate change, few reporters found the ink to tell the truth.
Even this new Financial Times article about climate scientists confirming the unequivocal certainty that manmade emissions are warming the globe features multiple quotes from climate skeptics and deniers, including Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Why bother to quote the skeptics here in an article about hard scientific evidence? it is their Climategate story that has been thoroughly debunked, not the science. If there is any lesson that came out of Climategate, it is that climate skeptics should be ignored, not continuously quoted.
The deniers' golden egg - Climategate - has been proven false. Yet they cling to the myth regardless.
Doesn't that tell us plenty about their "expertise" and motivations
I just love the title of the article, it's so dramatic. I'm a little curious though, I didn't see the date in which it was presented... Was this before or after the IPCC had to retract their "undeniable" assessment with the Amazon rain forest and Himalayan glacier research?
Just curious.
Just curious.