I thought the arctic was melting?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Aug 3, 2020.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I keep hearing from the AGW loons that the arctic is ice free and melting fast which is raising ocean levels world wide. That claim doesn't seem to jive with reality. Why does Russia and China need all these ice breakers if the arctic is so devoid of ice?

    President Trump, in a recent memo, asked executive departments to report back by early August on how they can develop a U.S. "fleet" of icebreaking ships to navigate the frozen Arctic and Antarctic -- marking yet another step in the administration's efforts to strengthen U.S. influence in the region as it faces challenges from Russia and China"


    "Russia, meanwhile, has dozens of icebreakers, including several that are nuclear powered, multiple large icebreakers and what can legitimately be called a fleet of medium icebreakers. China has a handful of medium icebreakers and is angling for new ones as well.

    "We really don't have the ability to project the presence we need to project in both the Arctic and the Antarctic," Vice Adm. Scott Buschman, the Coast Guard's deputy commandant for operations, told Fox News of U.S. capabilities with just the Polar Star and the Healy. Buschman's rank is the equivalent of a three-star general.

    "We do need additional polar icebreakers to do what we need to do both in the Antarctic and the Arctic at the high latitudes. In the past they used the term... 'six, three, one.' We need six icebreakers, at least three of which are heavy icebreakers. And we need one now."


    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-us-arctic-russia-china
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
    DennisTate and Sunsettommy like this.
  2. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is summer, that is why it is melting back, but every September, it changes back to growing a new layer of ice.

    Since the Arctic ice is already in the ocean waters, melting it all away doesn't significantly raise sea level, it is at best less than 1/2" change.
     
    DennisTate and gfm7175 like this.
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the BBC the Arctic started having ice free summers in 2013. Please try to keep up and read only Ministry of Truth sources!

    Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
     
    DennisTate, Sunsettommy, AFM and 2 others like this.
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  5. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Arctic is always melting every year, which is why it hasn't generated a new Glaciation phase.
     
    DennisTate and Josephwalker like this.
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody except you has said that melting Arctic sea ice raises sea levels.

    Nobody except you has claimed the Arctic is devoid of ice.

    Really, there's no need to keep confirming that deniers just make it all up.

    This year? Second-lowest Arctic Sea ice extent ever, with a little more melt do go. A new record low, though unlikely, isn't totally out of the picture. So much for the "But the ice is recovering!" meme. The predictions, as always, have been spot on.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2020
    Hey Nonny Mouse and DennisTate like this.
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic's sea ice has melted in recent decades. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly? If so, what effect is this having? "

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ice-melts-cause-rising-sea/
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2020
    DennisTate, drluggit and roorooroo like this.
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Melting sea ice cannot raise sea level any more than melting ice cubes in a glass of water can make the glass fuller.
     
    DennisTate and Josephwalker like this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Baldly false. Only since the cherry-picked 1979 peak.
    So much for the "accelerating decline in sea ice" meme.
    You mean the predictions that Arctic sea ice would be gone a decade ago, then seven years ago, then six years, then four, then two....?
     
  10. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    "Over the past 30 years, the Arctic has warmed at roughly twice the rate as the entire globe, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Most scientists agree that this rapid warming is a signal of human-caused climate change.

    Arctic amplification is not the only evidence of rapid climate change in the Arctic. The floating sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is shrinking, especially during summer. Snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, notably in spring, and glaciers in Alaska, Greenland, and northern Canada are retreating. In addition, frozen ground in the Arctic, known as permafrost, is warming and in many areas thawing.

    Changes in the Arctic climate are important because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the rest of the world—it helps cool the planet. So changes in the Arctic climate could affect the climate in the rest of the world."

    Like the West Coast, which is burning.

    "Researchers say that the changes in the Arctic are worrisome, because they could lead to feedback effects that lead to further warming."

    Have a cup of coffee, you need to wake the f up.

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
     
    Hey Nonny Mouse and Melb_muser like this.
  11. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    one thing covid has done is reduce emissions, so all the predictions will have to be revised
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2020
    DennisTate and crank like this.
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree that I was right, and your claim of "second lowest arctic sea ice extent ever" was a bald falsehood. Good.
    Please present your evidence that the rapid return to more normal Holocene temperatures since the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years was not caused by the same natural cyclical factors that caused all the previous similar century-scale warming periods, with an explanation of why those natural cyclical factors are no longer operative.

    Thought not.
    Much as it has shrunk every summer for thousands of years. Please present your evidence that the current shrinking exceeds that of previous Holocene warm periods following cold periods.

    Thought not.
    Please present your evidence that these phenomena exceed the similar phenomena that occurred during all previous natural century-scale Holocene warming periods following cold periods.

    Thought not.
    Please present your evidence that this was different during previous natural Holocene warming periods that followed cold periods.

    Thought not.
    As it did for thousands of years before people started preserving the fuel stock of dead vegetation on the forest floor.
    Please present your evidence that periods of naturally warm global climate, such as the current one, which used to be called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect, have now somehow become "worrisome."

    Thought not.

    Have a cup of coffee. You need to wake the f up, look out your window, and find a willingness to know the fact that those who claim there is some sort of climate "crisis" or climate "emergency" are just flat-out lying. Why would they be lying, which they self-evidently and indisputably are? Until you can explain the fact that they are lying, you have no business offering your uninformed and ill-considered opinions on the matter, and I will thank you to remember it
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2020
  13. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it would seem you didn't think.

    Long time ago, I thought when the changes got massive, people would stop lying.

    Didn't get that one right.

    The science was settled twenty years ago, dumbass evasions notwithstanding.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for agreeing that you have no evidence.
    The changes self-evidently haven't got massive, will never get massive as a result of human use of fossil fuels, and the lying continues to be mainly on the part of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers.
    Or anything else.
    Yes, it was: CO2 has at most a modest effect on climate not exceeding 1C per doubling, as proved by the fact that it follows temperature in the paleo record, and it is you who are evading the specific requests for evidence that I made in my previous posts. To wit:

    Please present your evidence that the rapid return to more normal Holocene temperatures since the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years was not caused by the same natural cyclical factors that caused all the previous similar century-scale warming periods, with an explanation of why those natural cyclical factors are no longer operative.

    Please present your evidence that the current shrinking [of arctic sea ice] exceeds that of previous Holocene warm periods following cold periods.

    Please present your evidence that these phenomena [snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, notably in spring, and glaciers in Alaska, Greenland, and northern Canada are retreating, frozen ground in the Arctic, known as permafrost, is warming and in many areas thawing] exceed the similar phenomena that occurred during all previous natural century-scale Holocene warming periods following cold periods.

    Please present your evidence that this [the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the rest of the world — it helps cool the planet -- so changes in the Arctic climate could affect the climate in the rest of the world] was different during previous natural Holocene warming periods that followed cold periods.

    Please present your evidence that periods of naturally warm global climate, such as the current one, which used to be called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect, have now somehow become "worrisome."

    It is you who are evading, my friend, you who cannot present evidence for your claims, and you who have fallen for a campaign of anti-scientific bull$#!+, and I will thank you to remember it. Which you will, if only when I am inevitably proved right.
     
  15. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're welcome.

    Internet 'experts' still don't do science.

    But you write a nice fake.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1979 was not any sort of peak year, and only the most shameless cult propagandists try to pretend it was.

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites

    [​IMG]

    The consensus has never said anything like that. It's wildly dishonest to cherrypick the words of one man and then imply it's the consensus, therefore you always do that. If dishonesty pushes your political aims, then you use dishonesty. Experience has taught us that when make a claim, one should initially assume the opposite is true, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
    DennisTate likes this.
  17. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,873
    Likes Received:
    4,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why hasn't anyone asked Al Gore? Where is he anyway?
     
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that CO2 is a feedback does not prevent it from also being a forcing. You are hilariously clueless about the basics, so you shouldn't be bothering the adults.

    Another one of your big whoppers.Temperatures have shot way past what they were before the LIA. The LIA was completely over by 1850.

    Your "natural cycles" theory doesn't explain the polar amplification, the increase in backradiation, the stratospheric cooling, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Being that the hard evidence flatly contradicts your climate conspiracy theory, your climate conspiracy theory is demonstrably wrong. You can kick and scream and invoke even more conspiracy theories, but the data still says you're just a guy on the internet screaming crazy conspiracy theories.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, so, another nothing burger from you. Check.
     
  20. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The burden of proof is on the internet geniuses that think they can change a science without actually doing anything.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh?

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-c...Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-5.53.39-AM-down.gif
    Funny how those fake "standardized" anomalies somehow not only miss the massive increase in arctic sea ice from 1953-1963 that Vinnikov reported in 1980, but turn it into a decline:
    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-c...Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-6.12.59-AM-down.gif
    "One man"?? Those predictions were made by multiple sources and you know it.

    If dishonesty pushes your political aims, then you use dishonesty. Experience has taught us that when you make a claim, one should initially assume the opposite is true, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.
     
    Ddyad and Sunsettommy like this.
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would not be me, because I have identified the facts that prove anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is bull$#!+. I have also identified the logical gaps that anti-fossil fuel hatr propagandists cannot paper over with evidence. See post #14 in this thread, above. That's not nothing.
     
  23. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, it's you.

    Science doesn't happen here, it's no different than a bar. Put it in a journal of climatology, your Nobel awaits!
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that it is also a forcing does not prevent it from being a rather minor one.

    You are hilariously clueless about the basics, so you shouldn't be bothering the adults.

    Another one of your big whoppers:
    That is baldly false. Before the LIA was the MWP, when temperatures were so high that wine grapes were grown in Northern England and the Vikings were farming in Greenland with Iron Age technology. No one is growing wine grapes in Northern England now, and no one is farming in Greenland, even with modern technology.
    No, temperatures had simply risen above the worst of the LIA. They had not recovered to the Holocene normal range, and did not until the last couple of decades.
    Wrong again. It explains all four: CO2's effect is only significant where there is little or no H2O in the air saturating the IR absorption bands. That would be in polar areas and the stratosphere, where the temperature is well below 0C and the water has condensed out. Because you are not familiar with the basic physics of atmospheric heat transfer, you can't understand that, or why it proves CO2 has no significant effect on global mean surface temperature.
    The hard evidence proves me right and your climate conspiracy theory wrong.
    No, the data prove I am right: there is self-evidently and indisputably no climate "crisis" or "emergency," and the anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists who claim there is are indisputably lying.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's you.
    Self-evidently false. People don't provide graphs and journal citations in bars -- and rarely offer much in the way of logic.
    There are no Nobel Prizes for not being deceived by propaganda.
     

Share This Page