• 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!

Arctic Sea Ice is declining when it should be growing.

Harshaw said:
:doh

That's what I said.



Weird; you just said 2016 shows "an immediate impactful example of the agw hypothesis at work." Which means, you use it to show that the hypothesis is accurate. Which is what I said. 'Coz it sure can't show what you said it does without the hypothesis being accurate.

But it shows no such thing. It's an anomalous. That's the only valid conclusion you can draw.

Recent years show above-average ice. You'd sure as hell be down someone's throat taking one of those years to argue the opposite of you, and you know it.

So . . . you confirmed you were doing exactly what I said you were doing, and you're declaring some kind of mic drop here?
Click to expand...

Your entire issue with my posts stems from your misunderstanding of it, not the actual data therein.

I started off talking about a specific example of warming, and the reasons for it. I then zoomed out to the topic of global warming in general, citing additional data. I did that because I don't think that an entire debate can be held over the topic of one years ice data (that isn't even complete yet) and wanted to link that specific example to the wider picture. If it helps you, think about my OP in 2 distinct sections.

Not once in our conversation have we actually talked about the actual topic of the OP, so yeah, sorry I didn't spell things out for you, I figured I wouldn't have to. If you don't have anything constructive to add around the actual topic, then yeah, consider this a mic drop, I've really got nothing else to say to you.

EDIT: Oh actually, I did see that you say that recent years show above average ice. Except, as the graph shows, the trend is downwards.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Your entire issue with my posts stems from your misunderstanding of it, not the actual data therein.

I started off talking about a specific example of warming, and the reasons for it. I then zoomed out to the topic of global warming in general, citing additional data. I did that because I don't think that an entire debate can be held over the topic of one years ice data (that isn't even complete yet) and wanted to link that specific example to the wider picture. If it helps you, think about my OP in 2 distinct sections.

Not once in our conversation have we actually talked about the actual topic of the OP, so yeah, sorry I didn't spell things out for you, I figured I wouldn't have to. If you don't have anything constructive to add around the actual topic, then yeah, consider this a mic drop, I've really got nothing else to say to you.
Click to expand...

No, dude. You said yourself that you brought up 2016 specifically to show examples of AGW in action, thus confirming it. That is what I said you were doing -- taking one anomalous year and leaping to a conclusion: "this confirms global warming." Because claiming that it provides "an impactful example" of it is using it to confirm the theory, Bill Nye-style.

I understood your post. But even when you admit you were doing exactly what I said, you still claim some kind of victory here.

Weather is not climate. An anomalous year is an anomalous year. Like I said, you know you'd be down anyone's throat claiming that a year of above-average ice is an "impactful example" of why AGW isn't happening. You know you would. I know you would. Yet, you're doing the same thing, just in the direction you like. It's the premise of your post. Which means the premise of your post is faulty.

I've said that all along, so indeed, I have discussed your post all along, and your post IS the topic.

Stick your fingers in your ears if you like, but it's what you did.
 
Grand Mal said:
C'mon, you don't really think bears can swim underwater for weeks at a time, and swim thousands of miles, do you?
Click to expand...

are you saying they cant¿
 
11Bravo said:
ive never heard of this source before. is there any reliable evidence?
Click to expand...

It's a peer reviewed zoological journal lol. How much more reliable a source do you need, I think that's about as reliable as you're gonna get.
 
And yet many people will deny climate change. Humans in denial are never pleasant to observe.

That said, I'm afraid it's very much too late for humans to make any meaningful change.
 
bubbabgone said:
"...since satellite records began in 1979."
That's some record.
Click to expand...

That is not the only record we have of arctic ice though. While nothing is as good as a satellite record as it allows us to look the north polar ice cap as a whole, we do know from records of polar exploration going back over 200 years that polar ice during that period was always more extensive than it is today. Of course, this doesn't even take into account glacier core samples worldwide where alpine glaciers have receded to levels unknown during the entire Holocene. (of course, that doesn't mean that every single glacier on earth has receded, just that far more have than have not.)

Hell, I stood on a glacier just this last July deep in the Wind River Range that was at its smallest extent since the last ice age. In fact, it's half the size today that it was even in 1982 (800 acres today, over 2000 just 30 years ago). The fact that the world has warmed a great deal over the last several decades is not at all controversial in science.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And yet many people will deny climate change. Humans in denial are never pleasant to observe.

That said, I'm afraid it's very much too late for humans to make any meaningful change.
Click to expand...

I agree we are not going to do anything about it. It's the absurd denial that gets me. I am convinced that we could be growing citrus in Wyoming, and you still would have a contingent out there claiming the world's climate hasn't warmed.
 
Nilly said:
Arctic sea ice is declining when it should be growing.




Normally at this point we'd expect it to grow again.....



What's happening? As the article explains, higher average temperatures not only reduce sea ice, but reduce the power of the jet stream (the jet stream is powered by differences in air temp) which would normally serve to keep warm air away from the arctic. Without that, it becomes a positive feedback loop and the arctic gets even warmer.

22 degrees celsius above normal in the Arctic. You may or may not have been feeling it in your back yard (hell, if you've been in New York like me you've definitely felt a warmer November) but many large regions of the world certainly are.

global_sea_ice_2016.png.CROP.original-original.png


Whether or not you think that climate change/agw is a big deal, change this fast is unprecedented, and it's patently clear that it's actually happening, it's not a figment of green lobbyists imagination.

As a country we've just taken a huge step back when it comes to our consideration of the climate, and that decision is going to haunt us, but that doesn't mean that hope is lost. Many vulnerable (who also happen to be poort) countries have all pledged to go fully renewable in efforts to reduce their carbon footprints, and the weak economics of fossil fuels like coal means we may be on track to hit some of the targets of the Paris accord even if we back out of it.

If you still don't believe that climate change is a real thing, I implore you to wake up. You're leaving a ****tier planet for your children.
Click to expand...

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Climate change is a real thing. It changes everyday.

I suggest you watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, and there's another one by the CBC (Canadian Croadcasting Corp.)
 
zimmer said:
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Climate change is a real thing. It changes everyday.

I suggest you watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, and there's another one by the CBC (Canadian Croadcasting Corp.)
Click to expand...

Did you even read your link?

Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of "crying wolf" and harming the message of climate change through "dramatic", "incorrect" and "confusing" predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.
Click to expand...

So basically, as the article says, one guy makes some extreme assumptions, which turn out to be wrong. Doesn't change the fact that we are losing arctic ice.

When the article came out (Oct 8) we were starting to see a refreeze - but then it stopped, as indicated in the article in OP.

Also from your article:
“The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade, but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations, etc, are that the decline will continue.”
Click to expand...

Then your nasa link:

Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.
Click to expand...

So thankyou for providing more evidence for my OP.
 
zimmer said:
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Climate change is a real thing. It changes everyday.

I suggest you watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, and there's another one by the CBC (Canadian Croadcasting Corp.)
Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head, I can remember from Great Global Warming Swindle:

1) Blatant out-of-context footage used to support a conclusion polar opposite to what was really being said
2) Outright fabrication of data (and then they falsely attributed this data to NASA)
3) Pure, unadulterated, comical cherry-picking.

You sure that's a source you want to bank on?
 
Deuce said:
Just off the top of my head, I can remember from Great Global Warming Swindle:

1) Blatant out-of-context footage used to support a conclusion polar opposite to what was really being said
2) Outright fabrication of data (and then they falsely attributed this data to NASA)
3) Pure, unadulterated, comical cherry-picking.

You sure that's a source you want to bank on?
Click to expand...

I think you have confused AlGore's flick of distortion with the BBC documentary.
 
zimmer said:
I think you have confused AlGore's flick of distortion with the BBC documentary.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm sure you're open to evidence, though.

And before you embarrass yourself, I have repeatedly criticized Gore.
 
11Bravo said:
ive cited everything under the moon. troll on
Click to expand...

So have I. It's in my 45,000 post history. I've proven you wrong, with sources.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is not the only record we have of arctic ice though. While nothing is as good as a satellite record as it allows us to look the north polar ice cap as a whole, we do know from records of polar exploration going back over 200 years that polar ice during that period was always more extensive than it is today. Of course, this doesn't even take into account glacier core samples worldwide where alpine glaciers have receded to levels unknown during the entire Holocene. (of course, that doesn't mean that every single glacier on earth has receded, just that far more have than have not.)

Hell, I stood on a glacier just this last July deep in the Wind River Range that was at its smallest extent since the last ice age. In fact, it's half the size today that it was even in 1982 (800 acres today, over 2000 just 30 years ago). The fact that the world has warmed a great deal over the last several decades is not at all controversial in science.
Click to expand...

The article in question focused on the satellite records.

You have no effing idea how big your glacier has gotten after & since the last ice age but I guess that depends on when you think the last ice age was.
Speaking of that, your science has decided there was no medieval warming or little ice age despite history saying otherwise, so I'd say your science ... isn't.
 
Nilly said:
If you still don't believe that climate change is a real thing, I implore you to wake up. You're leaving a ****tier planet for your children.
Click to expand...

A different planet and one that constantly changes. People adapt. People die.

In the end we have no say. It is companies that are in bed with politicians. Other countries, China, Brazil, India. What is the individual person supposed to do about it?
 
bubbabgone said:
The article in question focused on the satellite records.

You have no effing idea how big your glacier has gotten after & since the last ice age but I guess that depends on when you think the last ice age was.
Speaking of that, your science has decided there was no medieval warming or little ice age despite history saying otherwise, so I'd say your science ... isn't.
Click to expand...

There are a number of ways they determine the historical extent of a glacier. ice cores of course is one way they do it, they also look at geological proxies and carbon date organic matter at the terminus.

The later is a particularly reliable way of determining the historical extent of a glacier because much of the organic matter exposed by a receding glacier at its terminus typically only lasts a single summer before it disintegrates. For example, if a plant matter at the terminus of a receding carbon dates to 8000 years ago, then we know that glacier has not receded to that extent in at least 8000 years.

For example, if organic matter is carbon dated at the terminus of receding mid latitude glaciers at different ranges around the globe to dates between 3000 and 13000 years ago, then we know that however warm the medieval warm period was, it was not as warm as it is globally today. There are tons and tons of studies done on this.

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

http://minerva.union.edu/rodbelld/publications/Smith_etal_2005.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itudes_for_tropical_and_sub-tropical_glaciers

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelplant.htm

A couple of years ago my son and I were on a backpacking / fishing trip in the Bridger Wilderness. We encountered a team of biologists deep in the back country. They were studying the vertical movement of various species in response to the warming climate there. In particular, they told us about how pika have now moved almost a thousand feet up in altitude in response to the warming. Point being, the fact the world is warming is just not at all controversial in science. There is not a major scientific society in the entire developed world that doesn't accept AGW theory.

BTW, if you are ever in the Bridger Mountains in Montana, there is a small glacier high in the back country there where you can find grasshoppers at the terminus that are from the little ice age back in the early 1800s. Evidently a swarm of them were caught in the glacier at the time.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There are a number of ways they determine the historical extent of a glacier. ice cores of course is one way they do it, they also look at geological proxies and carbon date organic matter at the terminus.

The later is a particularly reliable way of determining the historical extent of a glacier because much of the organic matter exposed by a receding glacier at its terminus typically only lasts a single summer before it disintegrates. For example, if a plant matter at the terminus of a receding carbon dates to 8000 years ago, then we know that glacier has not receded to that extent in at least 8000 years.

For example, if organic matter is carbon dated at the terminus of receding mid latitude glaciers at different ranges around the globe to dates between 3000 and 13000 years ago, then we know that however warm the medieval warm period was, it was not as warm as it is globally today. There are tons and tons of studies done on this.

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

http://minerva.union.edu/rodbelld/publications/Smith_etal_2005.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itudes_for_tropical_and_sub-tropical_glaciers

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelplant.htm

A couple of years ago my son and I were on a backpacking / fishing trip in the Bridger Wilderness. We encountered a team of biologists deep in the back country. They were studying the vertical movement of various species in response to the warming climate there. In particular, they told us about how pika have now moved almost a thousand feet up in altitude in response to the warming. Point being, the fact the world is warming is just not at all controversial in science. There is not a major scientific society in the entire developed world that doesn't accept AGW theory.

BTW, if you are ever in the Bridger Mountains in Montana, there is a small glacier high in the back country there where you can find grasshoppers at the terminus that are from the little ice age back in the early 1800s. Evidently a swarm of them were caught in the glacier at the time.
Click to expand...

The year without a summer? 1816. A bit much to describe it as a mini ice age.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
The article in question focused on the satellite records.

You have no effing idea how big your glacier has gotten after & since the last ice age but I guess that depends on when you think the last ice age was.
Speaking of that, your science has decided there was no medieval warming or little ice age despite history saying otherwise, so I'd say your science ... isn't.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
Science doesn't say there was no medieval warming or little ice age.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There are a number of ways they determine the historical extent of a glacier. ice cores of course is one way they do it, they also look at geological proxies and carbon date organic matter at the terminus.

The later is a particularly reliable way of determining the historical extent of a glacier because much of the organic matter exposed by a receding glacier at its terminus typically only lasts a single summer before it disintegrates. For example, if a plant matter at the terminus of a receding carbon dates to 8000 years ago, then we know that glacier has not receded to that extent in at least 8000 years.

For example, if organic matter is carbon dated at the terminus of receding mid latitude glaciers at different ranges around the globe to dates between 3000 and 13000 years ago, then we know that however warm the medieval warm period was, it was not as warm as it is globally today. There are tons and tons of studies done on this.

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/lonniepnas.htm

http://minerva.union.edu/rodbelld/publications/Smith_etal_2005.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itudes_for_tropical_and_sub-tropical_glaciers

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelplant.htm

A couple of years ago my son and I were on a backpacking / fishing trip in the Bridger Wilderness. We encountered a team of biologists deep in the back country. They were studying the vertical movement of various species in response to the warming climate there. In particular, they told us about how pika have now moved almost a thousand feet up in altitude in response to the warming. Point being, the fact the world is warming is just not at all controversial in science. There is not a major scientific society in the entire developed world that doesn't accept AGW theory.

BTW, if you are ever in the Bridger Mountains in Montana, there is a small glacier high in the back country there where you can find grasshoppers at the terminus that are from the little ice age back in the early 1800s. Evidently a swarm of them were caught in the glacier at the time.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but ... no.
Working with anything many thousands of years old can only be approximations.
Besides, no one is arguing that climate has changed and is changing and your own links confirmed that.
Otherwise, those glaciers you stood on would still be what they were many thousands of years ago ... and they're not.

Furthermore, intentional misuse of proxies is part of what professional alarmists had staked their tactics and strategies on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom