[DerbyX]

ziggy ziggy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Exceedingly less then their used to be.

No,it hasnt changed,it's still ten feet thick at Rankin right now.

Except that satelite pics show an overall decrease.

[ziggy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ziggy ziggy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Denial based on creationist tactics is much better.

I don't want to believe it so I'll just attack the science.

I might believe you but in 3 years I never saw one scientist anywhere in the arctic,they must do these studys from a university computer or something and then feed it to the gullible folks like you on the net who of course,lap it right up.

You are an expert in your field.

The people proving global warming are experts in theirs.

Unless you are saying you actually have no expertise then you cannot contradict them can you?

Like i said,the people doing the study's that you put so much faith into arent there dude,aside from the guy's on Devon island doing the mars tests there was no scientists to be found for thousands of miles.

[ziggy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ziggy ziggy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Exceedingly less then their used to be.

No,it hasnt changed,it's still ten feet thick at Rankin right now.

Except that satelite pics show an overall decrease.

The Innuit say a sudden increase.
I think I'll believe them.

[DerbyX]

ziggy ziggy:

The Innuit say a sudden increase.
I think I'll believe them.

Actually they don't. Whats more they have no clue as to global levels.

[DerbyX]

ziggy ziggy:

Like i said,the people doing the study's that you put so much faith into arent there dude,aside from the guy's on Devon island doing the mars tests there was no scientists to be found for thousands of miles.

The scientific consensus is well established. Denial of this is no different then denial of evolution. It will take years and years and fought all the way.

[fifeboy]

ziggy ziggy:

Like i said,the people doing the study's that you put so much faith into arent ther e dude,aside from the guy's on Devon island doing the mars tests there was no scientists to be found for thousands miles.

Well, thanks for that zig, I was wondering how all those articles I get in Arctic each quarter were coming from. I just knew they were all fakes.
Everyone knows science is all crap, right!

[mtbr]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ziggy ziggy:

The Innuit say a sudden increase.
I think I'll believe them.

Actually they don't. Whats more they have no clue as to global levels.

as NASA has no clue to the levels before 1979.

[DerbyX]

Sure. They are all wrong. The only landed men on the moon but you guys think that was faked to eh?

[ziggy]

fifeboy fifeboy:

ziggy ziggy:

Like i said,the people doing the study's that you put so much faith into arent ther e dude,aside from the guy's on Devon island doing the mars tests there was no scientists to be found for thousands miles.

Well, thanks for that zig, I was wondering how all those articles I get in Arctic each quarter were coming from. I just knew they were all fakes.
Everyone knows science is all crap, right!

3 years up there and I never saw a scientist,I cant figure out where all these study's come from.

Believe what you will,I'm not here to change your mind.

[mtbr]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Sure. They are all wrong. The only landed men on the moon but you guys think that was faked to eh?

but I thought the moon was only 60 years old

[DerbyX]

With your knowledge of science I believe you believe that.

[Thanos]

Check with DJakeddy for the real truth. The Moon is all a big JOOI$H plot.

[fifeboy]

ziggy ziggy:

3 years up there and I never saw a scientist,I cant figure out where all these study's come from.

Believe what you will,I'm not here to change your mind.

Well zig, my opinion, not that it will change your mind, is that not enough science is being done anywhere in Canada (that's a whole thread in itself), but some is being done and it is being published. Just because you didn't see any, doesn't mean it isn't happening. And just for the sake of some of the real idiots, not all science being done is on climate change. The article in March on liver parasites in Labrador caribou isn't, I think

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Sure thing sunshine.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... inice.html

I'm not going to call fraud on that article just yet, but some things caught my eye in that article, and I was wondering if you could explain them to me.

$1:

The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center

OK, now we all, of course remember the satellite NSIDC uses was corrupted for "almost 2 months", as reported in February of this year right? The data might still be in use for all we know, but bloggers started to complain when they noticed craziness like the following in the NSIDC updating sea ice extent graphs.

NSIDC graph with corrupted data

You can read about it here, if you missed that story.

NSIDC Sea Ice Sensor has Catastrophic Failure

After that failure was pointed out to them they readjusted the data, and the graph now looks more like this...

NSIDC graph fixed with uncorrupted data

Big difference, eh?

OK, so let's go back to your article for a sec.

$1:

According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000.

My question to you then, is can I trust that? Going by my memory it took more than 10 days to get everything back online in an uncorrupted state.

As I recall they had to borrow data from uncorrupted satellites, or something.

In fact wanna see what those uncorrupted satellites were saying?



That doesn't necessarily contradict the basic gist of what the NASA article was saying. However there's some interesting observations to made in that graph. It's true arctic sea ice extent was declining in a short term trend at least up until 2007. 2007 was an ice extent minimum record for the 30 years of the satellite record. The year after that Ice extent bounced back a bit for the month of the arctic minimum, and for all of 2008 the increase was significant. If you look at where 2009 is right now you'll see it's tied with 2008, and I personally am willing to bet there will also be another increase for the fall minimum in September of 2009. That will be a 2 year increase from the minimum.

Wanna see another one?



Notice how 2009 is going into the error bars for the 1979 to 2007 average?

Here's some other cool stuff you might want to take note of.

Arctic temperatures have been cooling since 2005.

So if it wasn't warmer, CO2 driven temperatures that caused the 2007 sea ice extent minimum, what was it?

Here's one suspect. It's mentioned in one of the articles linked to earlier.

The Wind

There are, as I said other suspects - currents, salinity, record arctic cloudlessness in 2007, soot, even underwater volcanic activity. Most likely a combination of all those.

BTW did you know there's a lot of anecdotal, and other evidence this recent arctic melt was probably not unprecedented before the satellite period?

Here's a news article from 1946

There's hard data suggesting arctic ice may be thickening this year

You don't know that though, because the media, and AGWist flavored sites have a way of twisting words.

Here's an example

But hey, thanks for the link. Although I'm not sure what it has to due with the subject of this thread, which concerns how the Antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking.

BTW, did you know if you put North, and South together on a graph, sea ice globally is static? I have a link here somewhere for that, if you want it.