Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

Arctic sea ice extent is currently at an all-time low for this date. That's because cold weather in the USA meant warmer weather in the arctic.

However, the ice that is there is fairly thick, so low extent now doesn't mean a big melt off this summer.

 

Global sea ice has pretty much recovered to it's 1979-2008 mean.

 

nothing changed here you still can't read a graph...

lets expand that just to have a better look at your deception or self delusion(your choice), from the same site

click to expand

 

Sigh, you cannot compare apples and oranges. One half of the world does not represent the whole globe. Global sea ice is back to it's average over that period of time. This is a whole complex system, not just the ice on the ocean in the north.

 

Sigh...you still can't read a graph....you still can't comprehend the overvall issue....I would've thought after the embarassment of not knowing what a trend was (no, a single winter cannot be trend) you would have hit the the grade 8 science books to avoid future repeat embarrassments...but no you just doubled down, still as confused as ever and posted a graph that doesn't support what you imply....as I repeatedly post, if want trip up a denier hit'm with grade school science....

Even gobally, nothing has changed, the trend is less ice, a single year doesn't alter the long term trend....the arctic was always projected to lead the way (the pole has no land mass the heat will be absorbed quicker by the dark summer water)and it is doing just that...

 

You have such a basic understanding of what is going on the the Arctic by reading a few blogs yet even the scientists don't fully understand what is going on and of course they are looking for the hidden warming and coming up with theories for it even though you are so cocksure of yourself that there is no hiatus. Now of course, you resort to the immature childishness of those that cannot argue but can only disparage.

 

the irony here how the only people who repeatedly bring politics/ideology into the science are the deniers like you...

 

I use child level science for deniers because science literate adults comprehend whats happening...when someone can't interpret a simple data graph that really is 8th grade level then they're hopelessly in over their head debating this issue...it's not scientists who dont understand what's occuring, its denier world who are still failing at 8th grade science....it's classic dunning kruger, amateurs thinking they know more than the experts

 

Tsk tsk. Thanks for proving my point.

 

So Arctic sea ice had record regrowth last year but is back down to record low as we approach maximum, Antarctic sea ice is on track for record or near-record maximum... Plenty for all of us to cherry pick...

 

This thread is an embarrassment. The myths and lies that the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial tries to push in their idiotic attempt to deny the continuing steep decline in both Arctic sea ice extent and volume are just ludicrous, as well as fraudulent.

In 1953, Arctic sea ice extent was about 4.24 million square miles and most of that ice was thick multi-year ice. The Arctic has been like that for centuries at least, or more probably, thousands of years.

By 2002, sea ice extent had dropped to only 2.31 million square miles and there was much less thick multi-year ice.

Arctic ice extent hit a new record low in 2005, dropping to only 2.05 million square miles.

In 2007, Arctic sea ice fell to a new record low of only 1.65 million square miles, with even less thick multi-year ice. This was 23% below the previous record low in 2005 and 39% below the 1979-2000 average.

Another record low ice extent was reached in 2012, dropping to only 1.32 million square miles, with very little thick multi-year ice and mostly thin first year ice. This was 18% lower than the previous record low set in 2007 and 49% below the 1979-2000 average.

In 2013, Arctic ice extent, but not volume, recovered slightly, like it did after every previous record low extent in the last few decades, even as the long term trend continues to be steeply downwards.


Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

And then there is the steep decline in ice volume....



Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year. Source: Polar Science Center

 

The only sure thing after browsing through the many "climate change" threads, is that the jury is still out. It is not settled science.

 

Oh, and you learned this by browsing PF? You didn't even have to read a single paper in a single scientific journal to understand what is and isn't settled science?

Since you've browsed the forum in such detail, perhaps you can show us all the links where deniers have cited real peer-reviewed science. How many actual scientific papers have you guys cited on these threads?

 

LOLOL......"the only sure thing".....LOLOL. I don't know what "jury" you imagine "is still out" but the "jury" that I respect and listen to is the world scientific community and their publications in peer reviewed scientific journals. The world scientific community is pretty solidly agreeing with the findings and conclusions of the world's climate scientists (see: Scientific opinion on climate change), and virtually all of the published scientific research also supports those conclusions.


Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement. I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology. I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.


The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000. The top ten countries represented among the authors of all the articles are, in order: USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. Roughly 35 percent of the articles were about the impacts of global warming, 30 percent about mitigation, 30 percent about methods, and 5 percent about paleoclimates, without much change over the 20 years. Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers. A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming. Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. To sample the most recent 500 articles, click here. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public. Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree. By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed. Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it.


I had previously reviewed articles from 2013 with keyword phrases "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here. Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here. Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.
What can we conclude?
1. There is no convincing scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations. On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.
(source: James Powell)

 

Yes, climate change happens...that is settled science. However, Man's contribution is not settled science no matter how much you alarmists want to believe it. You alarmists like to use any paper or article that mentions climate change and/or global warming as a basis for scientific consensus.

Global cooling of the 1970's. Global warming of the 1980's and 1990's. Flattened temperatures of the last decade. More polar ice. Less polar ice. Rising ocean levels. Droughts. Ever-changing climate models. Different opnions around the globe. Settled science? I don't think so.

Food for thought: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

 

You "settled science" folks remind me of the quote once attributed to Charles H. Duell back in 1899: "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

 

What about the southern Ice Caps??? They appear to be melting. sort of nullify's your position somewhat.

 

If you've got evidence that overturns Conservation of Mass or Conservation of Energy, upon which AGW depends, by all means present it to a peer-reviewed journal. A Nobel Prize awaits.

In the meantime, some parts of science are indeed settled, in spite of what FOX news tells you.

 

That's your propaganda induced denier cult myth but it is quite false. Mankind has raised Earth's atmospheric CO2 by 43% so far (and still rising fast). This increase in CO2 levels is what is driving the abrupt warming and that fact is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.

Scientific papers that affirm anthropogenic global warming are a big part of the basis for the scientific consensus on AGW. There are almost no actual peer reviewed scientific papers that deny AGW.

It is hilarious that you imagine that this overwhelming preponderance of scientific papers supporting AGW somehow isn't or shouldn't be the basis for a scientific consensus.

Another denier cult myth. A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Thomas C. Peterson - NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley - British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
John Fleck - Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337. - doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Yes, a really strong upward temperature trend appeared as soon as the clean air laws passed in most industrialized nations finally lowered atmospheric levels (and the cooling effects) of the industrial pollutants and aerosols that had been offsetting the warming effects of the already rising CO2 levels since WWII. The global warming signal started to dominate.

Didn't actually happen. The Earth has continued to warm up at the same rate (or faster) over the last decade or so, as it was in the 1980s and 90s. Several scientific studies have found that more heat has been going into the oceans and it has been moving to lower depths. The temperature rise in the Arctic has been poorly reported due to a lack of temperature stations in that area but recent work in analyzing decades of satellite temperature records has revealed that the Arctic has been warming much faster than had been estimated. Taking the actual increase in Arctic temperatures into account, global average surface air temperatures did not "pause" in their rate of upward increase.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Kevin Cowtan, Robert G. Way
Article first published online: 12 FEB 2014
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297
Abstract
Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.

Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide results superior to excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.

Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s, which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997–1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

Actually both polar regions are losing ice mass. The Arctic is declining the fastest, dropping from about four and a quarter million square miles in extent in the 1950s to only 1.32 million square miles in September 2012, with ice volume also dropping fast. Antarctica is losing ice mass at increasing rates.

Definite evidence of global warming.

Another predicted result of global warming.

Climate models are being refined and improved all the time as scientific research improves our understanding of all of the many factors at play in the Earth's climate, like recent research on cloud formation and behavior in a warming world, but most of the assumptions and modeled processes in the basic models are about the same as they've been for the last several decades. Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

No, you're quite wrong. There are not different 'scientific' "opinions around the globe", at least. Scientists everywhere affirm that the Earth is warming up and that mankind's activities are responsible for that warming (except for a very few fringe scientists who usually have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry). That's the facts. Against those scientific facts, you have the "different opinions" being pushed in the media by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry, but those are truly just astroturfed 'opinions' that have nothing to do with the scientific facts of the matter. There is a real and very strong scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW that arose out of the decades of intensive research by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world and out of the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to mankind's CO2 emissions as the main cause of this abrupt warming trend.

Yes indeed, the basic scientific facts about this abrupt warming trend are considered pretty much settled.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

* "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]

* "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]

* "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12]
(source: Scientific opinion on climate change)

 

You are right, no official body dissents but plenty of scientists do. For one, the old 95% probability is really less than 50% based on the the extended lack of warming according to some climatologists and may be less in future years if the hiatus continues to 2030 as some scientists claim.

 

That's another denier cult myth. Unless you define "plenty" as a couple of dozen or so. There are an estimated 2,700,000 scientists in the US alone and an estimated 63,000,000 scientists on Earth. And unless you define "dissent" as just thinking contrary thoughts without actually publishing refutations of the science in the literature, or bringing it up at conferences and symposia, or using the various professional organizations and societies at their disposal to express their "dissent", or working through the National Academies and various professional institutions to express their "dissent".

LOLOLOLOL.....you denier cultists just believe any old nonsense that your puppet masters feed you, eh? That "95% probability" of human responsibility for this abrupt warming trend represents the world scientific consensus, and, if anything, it under-represents it. There has been no "extended lack if warming"; the Earth continues to receive more energy from the sun than it can radiate away into space so the accumulation of heat has continued unabated. Scientists have discovered that even more of the excess heat the elevated levels of CO2 have been retaining has been going into the oceans and moving into the deeper ocean waters too. Even the apparent slowdown in the rate of surface air temperature warming turned out to be based on an underestimation of the speed with which the Arctic is heating up. Another favorite trick that denier cult propagandists use is to claim that unspecified scientists support their fraudulent claims - "according to some climatologists"...."as some scientists claim". Try actually citing those scientists with specific quotes and links.

There is no "hiatus". The surface air temperatures are still rising fast, the oceans are still heating up, the Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away, Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at accelerating rates, most of the world's mountain glaciers are melting and disappearing, sea levels are still rising, the permafrost is still melting, and seasonal timing is still changing. Currently, 2010 is the hottest year on record but a new record high temperature or the year will almost certainly be set within the next three years.

.Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
10 December 2013

Global warming continues with no slow down
March 27, 2013

Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating
12/31/2013

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
25 March 2013

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail
17 April 2013

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms
MARCH 25, 2013

UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
July 3, 2013

Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State
December 5th, 2012

New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought
MAR 27, 2013

Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists
ABC News Video

 

First, lots of errors in the articles and a paper or two does not a consensus make, which isn't even science BTW. Relying on liberal blog sites that are in the tank and especially the cartoonists website is not really science but advocacy. You will notice that theories couched in a lot of maybes, not actual measurements are used to advocate increased warming although all of the datasets, Hadcrut, Nasa GISS, NOAA/NCDC, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Land + HadSST Oceans all show the hiatus. Saying the deep oceans have absorbed the heat is again theory since we do not have very much real data on deep ocean temperature but more on 1 to 700 meters.

Here is a paper talking about the uncertainties in ocean temperatures.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

Some oceans show a warming trend while other show a cooling trend and of course, we are talking about a very short trend, a much less mature dataset. There is no convincing case for deep ocean sequestration of heat and even if the heat from surface heating of the ocean did make it into the deep ocean, how this heat could reappear at the surface in light of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not very apparent.

 

No, actually there are lots of errors in your mistaken understanding of AGW/CC, as you've repeatedly demonstrated. Nobody believes your un-specific, un-supported claims. These articles are all based on published, peer-reviewed science.

LOLOLOLOLOL....."a paper or two"???.....LOLOLOL.....that's hilarious.....here's the couple of papers (or so) that helped convince the world scientific community as to the reality and dangers of AGW.....

Just more denier cult misinformation, pseudo-science, myths and lies.

The real science....

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms

 

Yeah....there is no doubt that Global Temps. are increasing....no doubt at all.

The U.S. Military and U.S. Navy are creating entire defense programs specific to warming as it would seem the Carrier Nimitz will not be retired as scheduled and will be refitted to be used in an Arctic Ocean Carrier Battle Group.

AboveAlpha

 

Science is not a majority vote.. That is not how it works.
You come up with a hypothesis.. you test your idea.. other scientists also test it and verify your data.. everyone is coming up with similar results. Until on day a scientist comes up with proof that you are wrong. You dont call for a vote.. you go back to the drawing board and figure out where you went wrong..

The fact that your pie charts show that there is proof that man made global warming is being rejected. means that it is flawed science.. back to the drawing board..