Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past

[Threegoofs]

Your comments doesn't show that you have done those jobs since you show no ability to articulate science stuff well. Not only that Dr. Crockford has published a number of science research on animals in the Arctic region over a 35 year period, who holds a Doctorate in ZOOLOGY. I think she is way ahead of you in this area.

Link to that science research she’s done on Polar Bears. Specifically on the populations and ecology- which is the area that are relevant here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Aren't "proxy samples" just the very kind of "evidence" those of Intelligent Design and Climate Change denialists use?

I do not accept "intelligent Design" , don't deny that climate changes.

Try something else without using denigrating comments.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Aren't "proxy samples" just the very kind of "evidence" those of Intelligent Design and Climate Change denialists use?

I don't know. I don't look into such things, but I don't think they use proxy data. Having an actual sample of a living animal of the past is far different that a proxy data point.

Please explain to the class. What proxy data does the ID crowd use?

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]An “Exceptionally large amount of winter snow in Northern Hemisphere this year”[/h]From the Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past department and the Finnish Meteorological Institute comes this press release today. Exceptionally large amount of winter snow in Northern Hemisphere this year The new Arctic Now product developed by the Finnish Meteorological Institute shows with one picture the extent of the area in the Northern Hemisphere…
Continue reading →

 

[SirGareth]

I think the valid concerns were many old programs had been written (and complied) with cobol,
using a 2 digit date code, so 2000 looks like year 00, instead of the year after 99.
I heard they paid big bonuses for the refinery workers on that Dec 31 1999 shift.

Process control systems generally use interval timers, not dates, to schedule events. (do "this" every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every 10 days, every 100 days, etc) There is no need of process controls keeping up with anniversaries, leap years and the like.

 

[longview]

Process control systems generally use interval timers, not dates, to schedule events. (do "this" every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every 10 days, every 100 days, etc) There is no need of process controls keeping up with anniversaries, leap years and the like.

From what I heard at the time, there was enough uncertainty to raise concerns.
It has been a few years, but it seems like I recall some of the concerns were with a variety of Honeywell
controller that was widely used in refineries.

 

[VanceMack]

We had a 2 inch predicted storm deliver almost 9 inches of snow over a day a month or so ago. Not the record for our area, but it was unusual to get that much out of one wave. It was after the arctic vortex issue had moved back north so it didn't stick around long.

And THATS because of global warming. Unless you had LESS than predicted because THAT would have been because of global warming.

 

[SirGareth]

Link to that science research she’s done on Polar Bears. Specifically on the populations and ecology- which is the area that are relevant here.

You are terribly impressed by people who "study" things aren't you?

My wife has cat that constantly "studies" whatever is playing on TV.

I'm fairly certain that the cat does't have a clue as to the material being presented, but you appear to believe she may have already earned several PhDs

Actually it not easy to count Polar Bears, Its like measuring the worlds temperature to 1 part in 300,000 (Kelvin) you can say you did it but being 50% off would be a great guess.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well, according to some actual scientific studies, the last time the Arctic has been almost of complete ice free in the past was 120,000 years ago.

Not according to this study:
Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean) - Stein - 2017 - Journal of Quaternary Science - Wiley Online Library

A scientist I know to be a person of extreme character and not given to exaggerating anything says the study is pretty compelling that the current ice levels in the arctic are not all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. Using samples of the presence of certain kinds of organisms in ocean sediment, they have determined there was almost certainly much less ice in the arctic 6000 to 8000 years ago. And whether it was ice free is unknown during that period.

The models that support AGW or unusual warming all assume that unknown areas of the arctic had ice in them during the periods they feed into their models, but that is not a safe or even reasonable assumption given the evidence.

Certainly the satellite records we have show a trend of less ice overall, but it also started after several decades of increasing ice coverage in the arctic that may have created an unusually large area of coverage. But scientists do not know whether that is in any way unusual in either case. The length of time we have had satellite imaging of the arctic region is so short it isn't even an eye blink in the big picture.

 

[RAMOSS]

Not according to this study:
Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean) - Stein - 2017 - Journal of Quaternary Science - Wiley Online Library

A scientist I know to be a person of extreme character and not given to exaggerating anything says the study is pretty compelling that the current ice levels in the arctic are not all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. Using samples of the presence of certain kinds of organisms in ocean sediment, they have determined there was almost certainly much less ice in the arctic 6000 to 8000 years ago. And whether it was ice free is unknown during that period.

The models that support AGW or unusual warming all assume that unknown areas of the arctic had ice in them during the periods they feed into their models, but that is not a safe or even reasonable assumption given the evidence.

Certainly the satellite records we have show a trend of less ice overall, but it also started after several decades of increasing ice coverage in the arctic that may have created an unusually large area of coverage. But scientists do not know whether that is in any way unusual in either case. The length of time we have had satellite imaging of the arctic region is so short it isn't even an eye blink in the big picture.

The abstract doesn't say what you say it says, and the bulk of an article is behind a pay wall. That is a dishonest tactic.

 

[Jack Hays]

The abstract doesn't say what you say it says, and the bulk of an article is behind a pay wall. That is a dishonest tactic.

Pay up or shut up.:mrgreen:

 

[Threegoofs]

Not according to this study:
Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific-Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean) - Stein - 2017 - Journal of Quaternary Science - Wiley Online Library

A scientist I know to be a person of extreme character and not given to exaggerating anything says the study is pretty compelling that the current ice levels in the arctic are not all that unusual in the grand scheme of things. Using samples of the presence of certain kinds of organisms in ocean sediment, they have determined there was almost certainly much less ice in the arctic 6000 to 8000 years ago. And whether it was ice free is unknown during that period.

The models that support AGW or unusual warming all assume that unknown areas of the arctic had ice in them during the periods they feed into their models, but that is not a safe or even reasonable assumption given the evidence.

Certainly the satellite records we have show a trend of less ice overall, but it also started after several decades of increasing ice coverage in the arctic that may have created an unusually large area of coverage. But scientists do not know whether that is in any way unusual in either case. The length of time we have had satellite imaging of the arctic region is so short it isn't even an eye blink in the big picture.

The extent might not be ‘unusual in the grand scheme of things’, but the extreme rapidity of the change is dramatic.

You’ll note you gave a range of 2000 years, which is about how long it took for that change to happen.

We are now looking at changes in the space of decades!

And the projection is likely for an ice free summer Arctic at mid century, which would clearly be unprecedented in the history of civilization.

And we KNOW it’s because of man. It’s not even an argument amongst those who are both sane and educated.

 

[SirGareth]

The extent might not be ‘unusual in the grand scheme of things’, but the extreme rapidity of the change is dramatic.

The ice in my scotch has melted, 100% of it gone without a trace; now that's "extreme rapidity of change"

You’ll note you gave a range of 2000 years, which is about how long it took for that change to happen.

The remaining ice in the Arctic ocean is 2000 years old?

How do they know that? DNA? Carbon-14?

We are now looking at changes in the space of decades!

Its far worse than that, there was a foot of snow and ice on the ground here only a week ago, its gone! Globally gone!

It didn't just pack and migrate; its gone forever!

That ICE has perished and will never be seen on this Earth again; its constituent molecules never to embrace each other in brotherhood again on this side of eternity.

Ohhh The horror, the humanity ("iceity?") !

And the projection is likely for an ice free summer Arctic at mid century, which would clearly be unprecedented in the history of civilization.

No it was already "likely" gone 6 years ago, you can only be "likely" (over 50% odds) gone once. The horse race has been run and your horse lost, you cant resurrect the odds again.

And we KNOW it’s because of man. It’s not even an argument amongst those who are both sane and educated.

So the women are excused, my wife does all the driving and shopping?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And THATS because of global warming. Unless you had LESS than predicted because THAT would have been because of global warming.

Either way, events like that are cyclical and not unusual in nature.

 

[VanceMack]

Either way, events like that are cyclical and not unusual in nature.

Of course. Droughts are cyclical.

 

[Threegoofs]

Of course. Droughts are cyclical.

So the cycle seems to be asymptotic... no big deal.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The abstract doesn't say what you say it says, and the bulk of an article is behind a pay wall. That is a dishonest tactic.

It does mention a minimum sea ice level:

ABSTRACT

In this study, we present new detailed biomarker-based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface-water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation. The short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.

I have seen lot more of the paper, there is a chart in it showing that indeed it was low to no summer ice in the early Holocene.

Here is the chart from the paper:

There are more published papers that also show support for the low to no summer Arctic sea ice cover.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pay up or shut up.:mrgreen:

He is unaware of published papers saying that early in the Holocene was a long period of time of low to no summer ice.

 

[backpacker]

And THATS because of global warming. Unless you had LESS than predicted because THAT would have been because of global warming.

Ok whatever. Supposed to snow tomorrow night as well. Fingers crossed I will have more proof of global warming keeping me home from work the day after.