The Smoking Gun - No Ice at North Pole this Summer!

There's something that is not clear in that article:

If there's thinner ice formed over a single year there was a moment last year when there was no ice. Obviously, ice contained in ice shelfs are in motion -and so the shelf themselves-, but not hundreds of kilometers in a year, as the map within the article seems to show. If this notion of an iceless North Pole is true -I have no doubt about it-, I'd expect multi-year ice cap to start very close to the Pole.

 

i typed "north pole" in google earth awhile back, thought i was fucking up.

Same with Kilimanjaro, source.

 

Just recently the ice was expanding. Also northern regions have longer revolutions due to the tottering axis of the planet. Unless the extra 0.00000032 parts of CO2 in the air has shifted the axis of the Earth I wouldn't go running to slaughter all the breathing animals quite yet. (While remaining vegetarian of course. "Man is evil" issues do seem to collide often now don't they?)
On an insignificant side note we have been around for over 12,000 years and haven't seen the poles until less than 100 to know if this has happened in the past. Just a thought.

I also noted that only a small portion of scientists are taken seriously. Do I see history repeating again? I'm not surprised though. This will come, it will go. Eventually it will be twisted back into the coming ice age. Again. Then decrease in the size of the "endangered" deserts no doubt.

 

well summer is here and ice is still at the poles. yawn

 

Well it doesn't hit its peak for a month or so. A few more days and those caps will just go POOF!! Then the laws of water displacement will be broken and we'll all drown.

Oddly enough Everest is still deadthy cold. Maybe another year or so and I can climb it. I'll just cross my fingers =3

[edit]
Actually now that I think about it that lawbreaker organization sent a bunch of nudists up there and made them do streaches. None of them were that good looking, but it does prove that A; Nudists are less subject to low temperatures and don't get frostbitten easily, and B; The ice is still there. (Whoops, that can't be right.. wait a minute..) I do love science =D
[/edit]

 

Please, expand this a little bit, with examples, if you may.

The minimum ice cap is reached in September, for the Northern Hemisphere. Now, they informed an ice cap for some days ago that is almost the same size the minimum last year.

Meanwhile, we had the last days the breaking of Glacier Perito Moreno, in the beginning of Winter (almost always happens in January-February-March, Summer), only one case in July in last century. At the same time, I have mosquitos at home in the middle of Winter. This creatures used to torture us from November to March, but today we can have mosquitos any time of the year, be it each-year-more-usual warm waves, or species, like Patagonian mosquito, that moves a thousand miles from its usual territory. Having mosquitos in September and October will be very dangerous, as birds from USA and Canada are arriving then and they are increasingly carrying here the Western Nile Virus. Last year we have many cases in farm animals, and one likely-to-be in humans.

 

How do we know this has "never happened"? Recorded history accounts for relatively little time when compared to the age of the planet. When it comes to recording the weather and climate patterns, that time is even less. While parts of the ice caps are receding and melting, others are increasing in size and thickness, such as in Antarctica and Greenland.

And while parts of the polar ice caps recede on Earth, the same is being witnessed on other planets in the solar system, such as Mars. This would point to the sun being the culprit, as there are no humans living on Mars.

Of course the climate is changing, but when hasn't it? The climate is always changing! People think that because weather and climate are much different than they can recall in their own lifetimes, that it must have never been this way in the past, when the planet is billions of years old.

I think what we are witnessing is the climate changing, but not because of humans, or at least not the way we think humans are altering the climate.

 

What false statement do you prefer we discuss? Oh! I realize you forgot to backup your statements providing any link (though it would be serious you provide at least two links for each statement).

Well, as a sample, take a look to this:

http://www.livescience.com/

[Somebody always claims h/s can't visit the page, so google for "Wilkins Ice Shelf bridge July 9 Charcot Island Latady Island" instead]

You said "... others are increasing in size and thickness, such as in Antarctica and Greenland". You simply said a lie (Were you conscious or not of doing it, does it really matter?). You can see in that photo a part of Antarctica the size of Connecticut with new fractures in the ice bridge that delays the Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse. The photo is dated July 9. Look at that photo again and say if it looks "increasing in size and thickness". Will you try to say something about? Beware! July 9 is the beginning of WINTER in Antarctica. This land is in the border of the some weeks long Winter night.

I think that even an illiterate person could understand that if an ice shelf is falling to pieces during Winter, something wrong is happening and nothing is "increasing in size and thickness" there.

Citations needed, or your degree in exo-meteorology. Promoting a association in the mind of the undereducated linking the sun high and warm weather in Summer and low and cold weather in Winter, with the "it must be the sun", is typical of the anti global warming propaganda.

I'm sure it was much warmer when Theia impacted.

More citations needed.

How easy is making assertions you can't back (or are lazy to back). The aim of anti global warming propaganda is seed tailored ideas and sell them as "common knowledge" so you can say them without a proof. The technique is repeating and repeating (not backing with data and reason). That technique was used a lot in 1930' Germany and Stalin's USRR.

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1766064.stm

Greenland ice cap thickens slightly

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/241005icecap.htm

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

Oldest DNA ever recovered shows warmer planet: report

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

So while the Wilkins Ice Shelf may be breaking up, that does not mean it's "melting" persay. There are also reasons for this other than global warming, such as underwater volcanoes, leading to ocean warming. This could explain why the inner regions of Antarctica are cooling (as they have for decades) while the outer regions (in some areas) are receding or breaking apart. The global warming fearmongers won't take a look at this evidence, though, as it goes against what they want to believe.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

 

Well, it's 15C in Yellowknife and 12C in Iqaluit tonight. They've had heat waves that far up north since April.

This doesn't surprise me.

 

Excelent, Pressed_Rat! Now we're talking!

You had to get back to January 17, 2002 to find this article.

This article has "good news" (follow link above, inside the quotation):

It was a dejá moo for me. I discussed this about 12-18 months ago. [Keep the name Joughin in your mind: you'll read what he said]

Another internet finding with the very same "good news" and quoted author

- "Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigtons per year, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years."
Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica." Science 295: 476-80.

What I wrote that time (here, you is Daniel, a friend, skeptic about Global Warming):

I found the abstract of that article. It's here.

I'd really like to read that report, it seems to be serious. But I suspect somebody tailored some conclusions that report may not have. The last sentence of the abstract is a good example of it: "The overall positive mass balance may signal an end to the Holocene retreat of these ice streams." As the retreat of the ice streams means that ice is not flowing to the seas, an "end of the retreat" can signal many things, but certainly not a "false alarm!".

The first phrase of the sentence you cited here is shown in three web pages. This [update: no longer the page contains the quotation] is one of them. Read it, as it is full of "good news". Here [update: page not found] is the exact sentence you cited, and suspected the "source" of those "good news". [update: google has similar results, anti-global-warming-propaganda moves fast and reshapes like the robotic villain in Terminator]

Correcting gigtons to gigatons, and looking for "reversing the melting...", only two results, same "quality". If someone can access this article

Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica
Joughin and Tulaczyk
Science 18 January 2002: 476-480

please, tell us if the "quotation" exists. I doubt it.
​

And later findings:

I found this article refering studies performed by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers. Some paragraphs:

"The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually."

152 cubic kilometers of ice is about 152 gigatons.

"A study spearheaded by CIRES researchers at CU-Boulder and published in September 2004 concluded that glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula - which juts north from the West Antarctic ice sheet toward South America -- sped up dramatically following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002. Ice shelves on the peninsula -- which has warmed by an average of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 60 years -- have decreased by more than 5,200 square miles in the past three decades."

Animation of the GRACE mission available here.

What I can tell after this little research on Internet is that most of citations of articles are heavily customized to the "writer's opinion".

This article from NASA cite Joughin's opinion (he's one of the authors of the Science Magazine article):

“Mass balance is very complicated, especially trying to predict future mass balance,” said Ian Joughin, a Senior Engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
....

Work by Jezek, Joughin, and colleagues has yielded some remarkable results. “Over the past five years, in part thanks to AMM-1 and MAMM, the idea of ice sheets being slow responders to climate change has been thrown out the window,” said Jezek.

....

“It’s amazing how much change we’ve seen in less than a decade. Some ice streams appear to be speeding up and others slowing down,” said Joughin."

...

"Joughin concluded that the nearby region of the Antarctic ice sheet has a positive mass balance for the time being, which may be good news for residents of New Orleans, but bad news for the Texas-sized Ross Ice Shelf. If the ice streams are carrying less ice to the shelf, it could possibly collapse in the future."​

Conclusion: The article you cited has the same quality of '1 year of cooling wipes out 100 years of "global warming"': it has a very comforting assertion that "wipes out" our worries claiming "false alarm", it focuses in one or two isolated statements, sometimes completely ablated from it's context, the kind of statement uncritical people are willing to buy eagerly.

In fact, you may not have being aware, but I answered this article in post #9 before you place the link: the breaking ice in Winter in the photo is the sea border of the area where ice is "getting thicker" according the "good news" in the article you cited (no part of West Antarctica is farer than 12 photo widths and heights of that image). The difference within the pathetic tiny map (and huge assertions) in the BBC article and that photo should be evident to anyone. The difference is, among other ones, 6 and a half years.

Pressed_Rat, I promise making in the next days new critical analysis on the articles you cited, but don't get use to pile a lot of links here without any explicit critical analysis on you part and expect me or other to do that job.

 

I suppose you chose the bold typeface. Well, about January 2002 articles I talked last post and I will discuss it again in a later post.

Here is the link to the Royal Society Publishing. Here's the link to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences and here is the September 2006 issue table of contents. No article discussing the subject.

The site has a very good search engine. Searching for "satellite measurements Antarctic ice sheet" yield no results in September 2006 issue, but a dozen in July 2006 issue. I'm gonna look for something about "ice sheet showed a significant growth between 1992 and 2003". Let's start with the search engine: using "showed growth", 4 articles

Well, so far, no traces of reality in that paragraph except the "Gore claims..". Would you help me to find the sources? . I'm sure you are serious and made a little research before giving the links.

I got an idea! This James M. Taylor works at Heartland Institute, and they promote their book about Global Warming being not a crisis. The site http://www.heartland.org/ has a search engine, maybe it is there the evidence and correct quotations and references needed to backup the assertions in the Chicago Sun Times. Surely, the newspaper drew all that references to suit their journalistic interest, but the site may have them, specially those of Royal Society and its free access site.

Lets look for:

query: British journal Philosophical Transactions

1 document: the very same you quoted here without any references.

query: Antarctica cooling

2 documents: One criticizing an article in Time, shows as reference the book Meltdown, no other reference about the ice sheet, but attacking the media with "Meltdown of journalistic ethics". Another titled "Minnesota Team Abandons Effort to 'Prove' Global Warming" says in a typical way "The scaremongers also point out as many as seven ice shelves have broken off the Antarctic continent over the past 50 years. They blame global warming, ignoring the inconvenient evidence that the continent is actually cooling dramatically. Between 1986 and 2002, Antarctica cooled by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade. There also has been a statistically significant increase in sea ice area, as well as an increase in the length of the sea ice season, since 1990." No references backing the assertions. None, zilch, zip, nada, nil.

It seems to be this people don't like to prove or back what they say, unless refers another opinion of the same color.

Pressed_Rat: Why don't you find the source for the article in the Royal Society Journal? I believe these people is trying to sell rotten meat.

I will continue with the Global Panel part of this and the other links you provided. I expect them to be the same quality.

 

Now, while keeping with this whole "Humans are evil we cause global warming without evidence" thing, are we allowed to mention the volcanic action beneath the northern ice cap? Now I am fully aware that hot molten rock and metal along with boiling water couldn't possibly melt ice, but I do think it worthy of mention at the very least.

[edit]

I have news for you. You were fucking up. I don't know whether you said that as a bluff or seriously didn't know, but Google Earth doesn't even have the North Pole on it. I checked just now.

You make things difficult. What exactly must be expanded?
From Wikipedia

Thirty. (30) This does not impress.

"Major industrialized countries."

This sounds like serious buisiness. Buisiness in the sense that they're making a fortune on it.

Now God forbid I point out the simple fact that nearly all global warming "science" contradicts itself. For example;
Global warming "scientists" (You know, the guys you find laying in an alley somewhere and pay to make a speach) claim that the oceans have risen a fraction of a fraction of an inch in the last few thousand years. Why would a global warming person even admit that?

Bums also claim that CO2 will rise temperatures. Well ignoring the fact that there's barely enough CO2 in the air to sustain plantlife last I knew CO2 was particularly cold when compressed. Now I may be a necrophiliac or something, but when I pick up a freshly filled tank of CO2 it feels really freaking cold. Cold enough to give you frostbite.

 

I found Nature magazine archive for 2002, and there is no issue dated Jan 14.

So far

1. September 2006 issue of BJPT doesn't discuss Antartic ice sheet
2. Nature Magazine issue Jan 14 2002 doesn't even exist

The third assertion in the paragraph is the kind of twisted-to-suit we can see in anti-global-warming propaganda. The sentence seems to depart from the fact that Antarctica is unlikely to lose its ice mass during the remainder of the century, meaning that by 2100 is expected that Antarctica will still have an ice cover (smaller and thiner), in fact, most of it, what doesn't make global warming any better. That's why the ocean level is likely to raise less than 4 meters (13 feet) -most probable 4 feet- during the century, and not dozens of feet. But, this come from IPCC, as there is not a U.N. Climate Change panel (an institution with that name), just the usual bogus reference to IPCC.

The complete paragraph, and probably all the article, looks like a typical chunk of disinformation rhetorics. The technique is:

• taking some serious or likely to be reputed institutions, media, and people
• extract the content of your choice, trim the context, shorten the sentences, and/or replace inconvenient words by others (the most used technique is choosing other definition of a word and look for a synonym, this can be alleged in courts and usually avoid legal problems to disinformers)
• obscure your fake reference by changing dates or giving as reference a 1000 pages document.

You have now the link there. If you were serious about what you said, take the time to look for the alleged "dramatic cooling in Antarctica" in Nature magazine's site. I'm gonna trace the last assertion in IPCC material for February 2007 (or was it March? or was it January? )

Press_Rat, feel free to use more than a couple of lines to cite the content.

 

Again:

Your answer

Now, though you seem to wander a lot, and looking at the complete text you quoted (you surely intended to place the link but forgot, didn't you?):

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Visit also the pages linked with the list of institutions and scientists]

By this, you simply seem to think the following:

• You don't believe there is a Global Warming other than cyclical or random.
• You believe that "also a small portion of scientist are taken seriously PERIOD". That's what you said. Taken seriously: only a small portion. Who do this? The life? Politicians? Media? No hint!
• I asked you to expand this "concept" and you reply with a long list of institutions that are plenty of scientists, and many of them with lasting tradition, that backed the ICPP conclusions, in the context of a page which link you forgot to place that also link to a list of a few dozens serious researchers that have other kind of opinions on the matter
• Up to this point, it's difficult to me to understand if the small portion you mentioned are the last few dozens, and you believe that they are the only to be taken seriously, or saying "everybody is taking seriously this chaps but not the other ones"; or, on the contrary, you are saying that 30 institutions with thousands of scientists are "the small portion" that are taken seriously about the subject (if this was the case, I partially agree with you). Otherwise, you may be saying that ICPP and more than 30 institutions (follow the proper link) are the small portion, and there is a much larger portion that is not being taken seriously. In the last case you forgot to provide a list or at least examples.

But maybe your words in the post may cast light about what you intended to say:

A fraction of a fraction of an inch? Perhaps you may get some figures you can back with data taken directly by someone (better one of "the scientists that are taken seriously" of your personal choice)

Io Saturnalia!!!!!!!!!!

There simply must be a word to describe the linkage of many disparate items by using fuzzy logic!!!

 

This isn't difficult to figure out. This is an old communist tactic to gain control of a group of people. Nothing new at all. The media is the mouth of communism. Again, not difficult to tell. The conclusion would be the media is taking a story and relaying it on to polotitians and the general public in effort to gain control. This in turn makes the target people (The democrats) a puppet to communism.

If you have a problem with my directly calling you a communist refer to these pages. They describe your views quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
As much as I hate Wikipedia, it is fairly easy to find things there.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/communism.htm

Perhaps you should have been a bit more specific. This is what I chose to "expand" upon. You admitted that I was infact correct.
Which goes along with the following.

Do you have any idea how many scientists there are out there? Self proclaimed scientists of old, whom people called fools, are responsible for things like lighting, engines, fossile fuels, and many other wonderful discoveries.
What are paid scientists responsible for? Homogenized milk? Excuse me if I spelled that wrong, but I don't really care. The homogenization process is responsible for many sicknesses. Milk was far better for you before they started doing that. This is the result of typical paid science.

So this is to say you think it's even more than that I assume? I truely don't understand how you could admit that.

How is direct contact with your theory, which you only read about I might add, "fuzzy logic?" Am I missing something, or is this a French bluff?

 

hacker.pizza, take it easy and take the pill.

The sad side here is that you made a fool of yourself with lots of paragraphs like:

and that doesn't contribute to make clear to the people the anti-global-warming-propaganda movement inners. There are ill, unstable or tormented people both sides of any line. You simply said nonsense because you hate too much and you hate too many. You accidentally are against "global warming", you don't even understand what it is about, you simply have chosen one more group to hate and took the label and fought that label.

On the logical side, you think "last" you "knew CO2 was particularly cold when compressed" and inside your mind this has to do with the truth behind global-no-warming or something so. If you last knew that coppers conducts electricity and bronze is mainly made from copper, then you can think you can get yourself electrocuted if you touched a buckle. I'm sure you don't believe the last but you believe the first, being both such similar aberrant reasonings. The difference between both is your hatred, that may do the first one reasonable and the second one ridiculous under the strange lights of your psychological needs.

Then, as you are an advocate and propagandist of anti-global-warming. I move my discussion with you to Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here, where this belongs. There, I will continue with what I started, the discussion of what is behind many wrong advocacies: epistemological hedonism was first, but you and another old chap in that thread are a good example of "depiction of the enemy", a primitive structure that is behind many immoral behaviors like school and work bullying, racism, and more. Any of you surely know about that because is part or our education and both our parents and school systems have taught us the perils of feeding these primitive instincts in our own. But is not out of place to make a revision here being many of you in these forums so prone to this behaviors.

 

This is from Russian news agency ITAR TASS:

North Pole 35 crew’s evacuation almost complete

Today here I think many people is discussing Global Warming as it is an increasing use to discuss such subject at school every day the weather is far apart from what is expected for the season and was usual. The third week of July, the coldest of the year, with mean temperatures expected to be 14° (57 Fahrenheit) the high and 4° (39 Fahrenheit) the low, well, today it feels like a typical day of January, the hottest of the year. The high temperature was today 28.3° (83 Fahrenheit). Nice Winter!

 

Based upon what I know about earth sciences, and history, global warming is a natural thing that happens every so often. You can't avoid it. Some of these climate cycles only repeat every few million years. Others, a few thousand.

We may have contributed to a premature initiation of this cycle, but we are NOT the cause of it. Mother nature has her own agenda. We're just along for the ride as long as we stay here.

Global warming on a major scale is a precursor to another ice age. I don't think this is a major cycle, just a minor one. It will still force us to adapt our civilization to the changes, like rising ocean levels.

The biggest danger in the near future is a collapse of the farming industry, and the starvation that will come from it. Tropical diseases like Ebola are also likely to move into areas that heat up. We're already seeing that.


x