• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Historical Records of Arctic Ice Extent

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Apropos my recent comments about the Arctic ice extent shrinking from time to time for reasons that are not clear, here's a report from 1922:

Ice extent 1922.jpg

And so, again, we don't know if the recent loss of Arctic ice is significant or not. We don't know what's normal for it. The comments about temperatures are interesting, too. There are other historical records showing the same thing in various years.
 
LowDown said:
Apropos my recent comments about the Arctic ice extent shrinking from time to time for reasons that are not clear, here's a report from 1922:
View attachment 67210415 And so, again, we don't know if the recent loss of Arctic ice is significant or not. We don't know what's normal for it. The comments about temperatures are interesting, too. There are other historical records showing the same thing in various years.
Click to expand...
That's not a record, it's a ONE year ANECDOTE.

Arctic
Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg




Overall: (Sciam)
naam-ice-031.jpg



Yep, Hockey Stick is Glaring.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
Apropos my recent comments about the Arctic ice extent shrinking from time to time for reasons that are not clear, here's a report from 1922:

View attachment 67210415

And so, again, we don't know if the recent loss of Arctic ice is significant or not. We don't know what's normal for it. The comments about temperatures are interesting, too. There are other historical records showing the same thing in various years.
Click to expand...

You have to remember.

These warmers believe the Arctic history is limited to the span of a satellite. Problem is, satellites don't tell is the truth before there were watching.
 
mbig said:
That's not a record, it's a ONE year ANECDOTE.

Arctic
Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg




Overall: (Sciam)
naam-ice-031.jpg



Yep, Hockey Stick is Glaring.
Click to expand...

Two images from two blogs.

Nice...

Where are the supporting papers?
 
It's an interesting paper.

Maybe someone can explain how Kinnard et. al. gleaned the data, with any acceptable accuracy?

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the
past 1,450 years

It uses ice and land proxies. They highlight only two variables, and proxy resolutions would never show a few years of deviation that can be seen by satellite. Seems to me, the only true proxies to use would be sea bottom proxies that change with coverage, but the resolutions still make an anomaly of a few your invisible.
 
sea ice last 1450 years.jpg

Maybe they should have been honest and told us the study showing less ice extent around 600 ADS for the Fram Strait, and less in the Chukchi Sea around 1500...
 
LowDown said:
Apropos my recent comments about the Arctic ice extent shrinking from time to time for reasons that are not clear, here's a report from 1922:

View attachment 67210415

And so, again, we don't know if the recent loss of Arctic ice is significant or not. We don't know what's normal for it. The comments about temperatures are interesting, too. There are other historical records showing the same thing in various years.
Click to expand...

Yes, if we ignore it it will go away.................
 
mbig said:
That's not a record, it's a ONE year ANECDOTE.

Arctic
Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg




Overall: (Sciam)
naam-ice-031.jpg



Yep, Hockey Stick is Glaring.
Click to expand...


I don't believe these reconstructions. The historical records I've seen don't agree with them. The report from 1922 indicated ice extent that is even less than today, but it doesn't show up on your reconstruction. There are several other years where the ice loss was as great before 1935.

See here for example.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
I don't believe these reconstructions. The historical records I've seen don't agree with them. The report from 1922 indicated ice extent that is even less than today, but it doesn't show up on your reconstruction. There are several other years where the ice loss was as great before 1935.....
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you've seen (on Voodoo Blogs you frequent) other Info... or just 'believe' what the Koch Brothers tell you. Tho I think even they have gotrten on board with Warming... leaving some posters high and dry.. or with WUWT, etc.
I posted very good source material, and don't see your comparative graph for the last 1400 years.
Ho hum.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
I don't believe these reconstructions. The historical records I've seen don't agree with them. The report from 1922 indicated ice extent that is even less than today, but it doesn't show up on your reconstruction. There are several other years where the ice loss was as great before 1935.

See here for example.
Click to expand...

Besides, they are both from blogs, and the person who linked it is probably too ashamed to link their source. The top one is from a poster's comment to the Skeptical Science blog. The poster's name is Tom Curtis.

Missing Arctic warming does contribute to the hiatus, but it is only one piece in the puzzle.

The second one, at the top of the page, says "guest Blog." Just because it's from Scientific American, doesn't make it written by a scientist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/

Bad form using bloggers as science.
 
mbig said:
Well, I guess you've seen (on Voodoo Blogs you frequent) other Info... or just 'believe' what the Koch Brothers tell you. Tho I think even they have gotrten on board with Warming... leaving some posters high and dry.. or with WUWT, etc.
I posted very good source material, and don't see your comparative graph for the last 1400 years.
Ho hum.
Click to expand...

Who do you post entries from blogs instead of papers?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Who do you post entries from blogs instead of papers?
Click to expand...
I think Blogs like Sciam are very decent, and the Data/Charts ARE derived from Papers. See refs.

This opposed to the CLOWNS posted here regularly by your side.
You must be kidding!
Have you asked one [non-conversant] poster here in particular that question once in 10,000+ Blog posts?
Hypocrisy is stunning.
Really too much/Bye.
 
mbig said:
I think Blogs like Sciam are very decent, and the Data/Charts ARE derived from Papers. See refs.

This opposed to the CLOWNS posted here regularly by your side.
You must be kidding!
Have you asked one [non-conversant] poster here in particular that question once in 10,000+ Blog posts?
Hypocrisy is stunning.
Really too much/Bye.
Click to expand...

They are good in ypour eyes and the others bad because of your confirmation bias.

That's why I read the actual papers. You know, the scientists own words. I'm not a simple person, so I don't believe what bloggers say. Especially when they don't link their paper source.
 
mbig said:
Well, I guess you've seen (on Voodoo Blogs you frequent) other Info... or just 'believe' what the Koch Brothers tell you. Tho I think even they have gotrten on board with Warming... leaving some posters high and dry.. or with WUWT, etc.
I posted very good source material, and don't see your comparative graph for the last 1400 years.
Ho hum.
Click to expand...

Koch brothers! :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom