Global Sea Ice Breaks Record For Day, Fear Mongering Continues

This is interesting, to say the least...
Raw blogged data: www.climatedepot.com...
Authoritative spin doctoring:
nsidc.org...

At the end of its melt season, Arctic sea ice fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, both in the daily and monthly average. Sea ice hit 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles) on September 17 and averaged 5.3 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) for the month of September.

"Twenty years ago, having ice extent this low would have astounded us," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "Now it is expected."

This year edged out last year as the sixth lowest extent since satellites started measuring sea ice in 1979. The lowest Arctic extent on record occurred in 2012, when sea ice measured 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). The succeeding lowest years are 2007, 2011, 2008, and 2010.

Through 2014, Arctic sea ice has now been declining at a rate of 13.3% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. The ten lowest September ice extents over the satellite record have all occurred in the last ten years.

But wait, who is being truthful here? Math and statistics can be manipulated in many, many ways. The key here is the warming fear mongerers use of the term "mean temperature", in other words, they're using regression formulas to milk as much out of the warm period Earth naturally experienced 20 years ago as they possibly can... and here's that fact graphhically displayed:
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

The magenta line is a regression of data that places more value on spikes than on consistency in numbers. This allows the line to run right over the lows of 1984. It is scientiffically IMPOSSIBLE for arctic ice to be shrinking the past 2 years because, as you can see from this chart, it has actually grown. This where the fear mongers use another tactic "Sea ice loss in the summer"... the more sea ice grows in the winter, the more of it is lost in the summer. This is a natural process outside of a true ice-age, in which even summer temps wouldn't put a dent in ice formations. The truly important number, and one which we never see, would be annual net ice growth/loss.


Per Al Gore's dire warning from 2009, Antarctica should be warming at "3-5 times the rate of the rest of the world" and we should be seeing ice shelf collapses and ice loss left and right (along with that asinine 20 foot sea level rise) but now we're being told the exact opposite by these so-called "experts", now global warming actually is making Antarctica colder. Pardon my bemusement at this ridiculous nonsense...

Then there is this:
www.nasa.gov...

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”

Nah lady, you don't even know WHAT is happening, let alone why... you just know your funding and livlihood depend on forwarding this manufactured agenda and it depends on you and your colleagues convincing the world that not only is something up, but their money is desperately needed by governments to fix it...

B..B..BUT....DOOM...END OF CIVILIZATION...R..R..REPUBLICANS...DOOM....TAX...SPEND...

BTW...Also:

Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rain-forests grow faster: Study shows trees absorb more greenhouse gas than expected

www.dailymail.co.uk... use-gas-expected.html

...ooops.

If the Arctic Sea never has ice again, it will flood all the coastal cities.



Time to SELL everything and call your lawyer.

Make those final arrangements NOW !!!

a reply to: IAMTAT

What is amazing to me about that is the fact that it was taught to most of us in 3rd grade science class in the late 80s. Photosynthesis... CO2 + Chlorophil + Sunlight = Sugar molecule + oxygen + Water

I'd love to know if this is still being taught to school children or, since it goes against the current agendas of bilking ignorant folks out of their money, if it has been dumbed down to better the odds of the next generation recognizing the scam.

...and the 21st Centuries version of alchemy continues. :rolleyes:

I for one believe the climate is changing...naturally.

But TPTB won't let a good catastrophe go to waste while they have the power to blame us for all of it so therefore must pay.

Forgetting of course that TPTB are the biggest contributors in Destroying our planet.

Peace

a reply to: xuenchen

If the Arctic Sea never has ice again, it will flood all the coastal cities.

I see you've never watched ice melt in a glass before.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The truly important number, and one which we never see, would be annual net ice growth/loss.

Not sure about what you mean by "which we never see". You mean as in volume and you want to see year on year comparisons of summer/winter? Because even as the ice refreezes each year and covers a reasonably large surface area, maybe even close to historical values, it is thin. The report you quote is describing surface area only. In summer the sea ice melts and the surface area reduces. Then in winter it starts to freeze again. But the volume is nowhere near where it use to be, it is thin, broken up, and maybe even mushy whereas it used to be meters thick.

I would definately agree that the important number is VOLUME not surface area. Never the less, even with the small respite cited here, up from 7500 to 8000 cubic Kms, historical volumes were 20,000 cubic Kms. Still a long way to go to think about the possibility of a recovery yet.

And you say we never see that figure anywhere?

How is this for a start: Arctic Sea Ice Volume Variability

Doesn't more sea ice mean less land ice?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: xuenchen

If the Arctic Sea never has ice again, it will flood all the coastal cities.

I see you've never watched ice melt in a glass before.

Hands down the best reply to climate change I've ever seen!!!
Just OUTSTANDING!!!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The key here is the warming fear mongerers use of the term "mean temperature", in other words, they're using regression formulas to milk as much out of the warm period Earth naturally experienced 20 years ago as they possibly can... and here's that fact graphhically displayed:
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

The magenta line is a regression of data that places more value on spikes than on consistency in numbers. This allows the line to run right over the lows of 1984.

I'm not seeing the spin you're seeing, since they talk about the Antarctic sea ice hitting a new high. They don't really claim the Arctic sea ice hit a new low, they just said it continues low, which even according to your graph, but even more clearly in the data they actually used, is more or less true. This is the data they used as far as I can tell, and it does seem to support the September ice level being the 6th lowest as they claim. (Note the data you posted is not the same).

nsidc.org...


Also they show the antarctic sea ice hit a new record and it shows the antarctic sea ice has gained a lot of coverage since 1974 and a lot just in the last year, so that it's almost a wash with the loss in the arctic:

Does that mean when the ice gets thick enough down in Antarctica....the world will turn turtle.................???
AHHHHHH DOOOOOMMMMM!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
But wait, who is being truthful here? Math and statistics can be manipulated in many, many ways. The key here is the warming fear mongerers use of the term "mean temperature", in other words, they're using regression formulas to milk as much out of the warm period Earth naturally experienced 20 years ago as they possibly can... and here's that fact graphhically displayed:
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Speaking of manipulation, "Steven Goddard" is the worst possible reference regarding climate change. Until this year, he has been operating anonymously under this pseudonym. WUWT founder Anthony Watts has, in the past, dismissed him as hopeless.

In that graph, he picks one day and looks at that same day over a range of years - a meaningless statistic. He takes this meaninglessness and claims meaning. Sea ice fluctuates - it shrinks during the summer and grows during the winter:
This year, the minimum arctic ice extent was September 17th. Last year, it was September 13th.

Moreover, extent tells nothing about density. Thicker ice melts slower, and thinner ice melts faster. Ice is also subject to weather activity. The extent this year was slightly more than the extent in some previous years. Despite this slight recovery, 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record.

Oceans are warming rapidly, which has confounded things by buffering the atmospheric warming. We know that Antarctica is losing land ice. Even still, sea ice in Antarctica seems to be trending upwards as sea ice in the Arctic is trending downwards. It melts almost entirely each year and reforms. Note that it doesn't exactly correlate; min and max of the opposite hemisphere is separated by some time. I wonder if the Mpemba effect has to do with increased sea ice in Antarctica?

So glad we have your opinion, rather than so called experts. Your erudite explanation of the magenta line is priceless.
You must have put a lot of research into the background behind a video clip. Those so called experts actually gather data and process it, but your explanation is so much sweeter and allows me to go back to reading my Murdoch papers.
Just a shame its wrong
a reply to: burdman30ott6

a reply to: Colbomoose

Follow the money. If the science behind the Global Warming scare is strong, then it shouldn't only stand up under scrutiny, it should welcome the scrutiny. Instead we have vilification of "deniers"... ridiculous tactics of a ridiculous group of sheep following their masters down a path to wealth redistribution and zero growth goals.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
The ridicule comes from people denying a whole lot of basic stuff. What part of the science doesn't stand up?

To the point, does adding CO2 to an atmosphere increase thermal radiation absorption, ceteris paribus?
YES or NO

a reply to: Caver78

Hands down the best reply to climate change I've ever seen!!! Just OUTSTANDING!!!

Sea ice is floating on water. When it melts it does not cause the sea level to rise any more than ice melting in a glass will cause the glass to overflow.

The Greenland and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are on land, if they melt, the sea level will rise.

Do you see the difference? Have you ever watched ice melt in a glass?

xuenchen has a history of non-sequiturs on here, even though he/she knows better.

Do you have a better retort for him?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I would have no problem with climate warning nay sayers, if an agreeable legal contract was written up, that states something along the lines of "If man effected climate change (to a sufficiently negative degree) is proven without a doubt in the next 50 (better time line?) years, I hereby accept, the falseness of my previously held beliefs, and will carry out the sentence of working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for the rest of my life (if I am not alive, my children will carry out the sentence) doing what the scientists say must be done to attempt to remedy the situation, my brave ignorance has helped cause".

Are yall brave enough to put your money where your mouth is? How confident are you?


My answer to any of your rebuttals is; Pollution is not good. Erring on the side of caution. Better safe than sorry.

Perhaps in 100 years, if we still have the internet, us common folk will have a better idea as to what the weather is doing, the weather cannot seem to make up its mind, so neither can I.

The industrial revolution only began ~250 years ago, didnt really pick up till some time after it started, and has been growing exponentially since. Taking note of warning sides of a problem and attempting to rationally discuss potentially solutions is a sign of intelligence. If part of the reason for supposed climate change is 'messing with the ozone', the warming effect being, if there is a hole in the layer, more radiation/heat will get in; would it not follow that, in the colder months, with that hole, more heat would also escape? So would it then follow then, that if there was man induced climate change, or 'something up with the ice caps', that there may not be a perfectly and radical expression of the data as a stream line to heat? But something more, cyclical, 'messy', jagged...different. I dont know, I have not researched this issue at all, because I am immediately on the side of caution, I care about this planet very much, I care about the great being that is human, and the great body he makes up that is man kind, and I do think anyone who is so careless in regards to the environment is an enemy to mankind.

originally posted by: lostbook
Doesn't more sea ice mean less land ice?

Doesn't more sea ice mean less land ice?

No.

There is no such thing as the "Law of Conservation of Ice".

OK, glaciers 'calving' into the ocean means that ice that used to be on land is now in the sea, but that isn't what the 'issue' is about here.