Deep freeze caused by melting of ice sheet

So let me get this straight: Global warming that caused the end of the iceage cause global cooling? And it could happen again? We're farked no matter which way we go.



So we should welcome the Arctic ice melting, 'cause it will stop that nasty global warming and we won't have to hear from Al Gore anymore. On the other hand, Arctic ice levels are back to almost normal this year. That's going to lead to massive global warming which will melt the ice caps which will lead to massive global cooling which will thicken the polar ice caps which will lead to massive global warming....heeeeelp meee.

Actually, the real point here is that the global warming/climate change alarmists are supposedly proven correct by any and all evidence.

If it cools, they're right.

If it warms, they're right.

If it stays the same, they're right.

That's why global warming theory is not actual science. Unlike real scientific theories, this one supposedly cannot be disproven.

Which makes it a religious belief and not a scientifically sound hypothesis.

Actually, the real point here is that the global warming/climate change alarmists are supposedly proven correct by any and all evidence.

If it cools, they're right.

If it warms, they're right.

If it stays the same, they're right.

That's why global warming theory is not actual science. Unlike real scientific theories, this one supposedly cannot be disproven.

Which makes it a religious belief and not a scientifically sound hypothesis.

When you're right, you're right. I'm struck by the similarities to "the Lord moves in mysterious ways."

Me, too.

Funny, it's easy to recognize religious or non-scientific belief when you're a believer in a non-scientific faith.

And if you look at how climatologists deal with their critics and with their colleagues who don't adhere to global warming dogma you'll see that the global warming believers closely resemble the Scientologists.

Which invites you to apply the 'Duck Test' to the AGW crowd:

They talk like a cult.

They act like a cult.

They behave like a cult.

Because they are a cult.

Implying this theory is something new, or is in some way more important than it was yesterday, because they found another piece of what they're calling evidence this week is just more blarney.

They recycle this story every few years. It's where they got the idea for the movie Day After Tomorrow. It's meaningless. The type of melt that happened back then, isn't possible today. The ice that was there then, doesn't exist today. Not to worry anyway, another study came out last week from, I think it was NASA, showing the gulf stream is not slowing down.

If you're still worried about a melt though you might look at what's been happening in the Arctic the last little while, It's kind of fascinating.



Kay, see that solid black line that's the thirty year average for ice extent.

Ordinarily, at this time of year ice extent is decreasing, but notice that blue line? That's the current extent. Notice how it's going up? That's unheard of this time of year, I think. When the blue line hits the black line it will be the first time since 2001.

See that grayed out area along the thick black line. I'm pretty sure I've heard that described as the point where they become confused as too whether or not the extent is really any different than it was. Error bars, no statistical significance, something like that. Notice how long we've been there so far this year, and any guesses how long we'll stay there?

OK, here's the big one. Notice the broken green line? That's the arctic ice extent for the year 2006-2007. That is the year that caused all the hysteria as far as the recent arctic ice melt goes. It is the record melt year for the 30 year satellite record. Nobody knows if it is even a record against the Arctic warm period ending some time in the 40s. There was no satellite record at that time.

2006-2007 is the year they're talking about when they talk about recent record melting. It's the year Al Gore and others give you when they have a scary number representing record melting ice. However, for the years following that year, the ice has been returning. As you can see it's almost all back. If this continues into September, forget about these hysterical catastrophe stories concerning a melting Arctic. It just won't be believable. It will be to easy to just point to the graph, and say "What Arctic melt?".

You can read more about the above, with more graphic evidence at Watt's blog if want.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/a ... -news-say/

Oops double post

Here's the arctic sea ice extent since 1979.




Source:

Thats OK. This blog got busted anyway.

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

Greenlands loosing ice too? http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Grace ... s_999.html

Why are people who dispute human caused climate change trying so desperately to prove climate change isn't happening?

Its not happening.
If it is then it isn't caused by humans.
If it is happening and caused by humans then its all good anyway.

WOW Zip, its almost as if .... the data supports global warming.

No way dude, it can't be!

Jenn, yes the added carbon dioxide we see from whatever sources does affect the environment. Bio-mass has increased. Plants like carbon dioxide. Also we may have seen an increase of 1/2 degree c to 1 degree per doubling of CO2. That's over a long period of time, and doesn't hurt anything. To get to the higher catastrophic levels of warming speculated on you have to imagine something called positive feedbacks. The wished for dominance of those by catastrophists is unlikely.

Zip, yes there was a thirty year trend of increased melts in Februaries. Most likely even for whole years, but I'm guessing not quite so steep.

In fact there was a thirty year overall trend of arctic warming. We've seen it with satellite. We don't have satellite trends before that, so we don't know if this is unprecedented, or what exactly may have happened before. We can however guess with stuff like NASA/Giss Data. We can show a previous arctic warming trend ending about 1940, which was steeper than today's. The Northwest passage was open during that period. The ice came back, before the recent 30 year slow melt.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Ar ... 2004_4.gif

Derby, how do you "Bust a blog", with an article that came out a year before the article it supposedly busts, and has nothing to do with the article it's supposed to be "busting"? Another mystery of global warming catastrophism, I guess.

However, Ok, I'll venture off topic a bit with you, and concentrate on Greenland.

Measuring ice mass with GRACE has proved problematic in the West Antarctic.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 101909.php

Contrasting reports have been coming in concerning Greenland. In 2009, at an AGU meeting glaciologists reported the results of a 2007-2008 survey. They reported a "broad slowdown" of receding ice, and described it as "a synchronous switch-off".

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content ... -comes-end

A paper published in Journal of Climate from Jason Box, Lei Yang, David Bromwich, and Le-Sheng Bai "discusses data from Greenland since 1840. No unprecedented recent warming is found. For example, they find that the 1919-1932 warming was 1.33 times greater than the 1994-2007 warming."

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... 1930s.html

Here's the actual paper in PDF.

http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFul ... c_2009.pdf

A paper from Quaternary Science Reviews shows Greenland temps were warmer during the Medieval warm period than they have been recently in the same areas.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/stud ... enland.php

"They confirmed temperatures were warmer during Medieval Period when CO2 levels were significantly lower, versus the late 20th and early 21st centuries temperatures."

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/2010 ... eriod.html

And even if ice has been lost from Greenland over the last 30 years, so what? That has nothing to do with what I, and the blog which you've somehow fantasized you've "busted" claim; which is arctic ice extent has been increasing in the last 2 to 3 years, and has made a strange sudden spike upward recently. Me personally, I predict, Arctic Ice extent will be back to the 30 year average by the summer minimum. I've been predicting correct the last 2 years, so I'm going to go for 3 for 3.

Does wonders for the pine beetle. Not so good if you're a pine tree though.



I posted the graph because you're previous comment implied that the arctic was undergoing some unprecedented cooling. I think the graph speaks to that.


http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFul ... c_2009.pdf


A Briffa paper? You're quoting a Jones and Briffa paper??? The guys you've slammed repeatedly in the past. Sorry, you can't just cherry pick the studies you like and write off the others.

Warming did not cause the pine beetle infestation. Not even David Suzuki is brave enough to say it did. Warming may have facilitated some of the spread, but it did not cause the infestation. Green Eco nuttiness infecting bureaucracies, and causing bad forestry practices may have been more likely as an actual cause. Blame Elizabeth May, if you're looking for somebody to blame for that one.



No. Neither Graph is necessarily a proxy for overall Arctic temperatures. NSIDC's Walt Meier claims this recent spike in extent comes from growth in specific regions. Somebody else was claiming North blowing winds were packing ice. Ice is also affected by factors others than temperature, and sudden regional fluctuations - wind, salinity, current, cloudiness.



You've got a point, but I'm kind of damned if I do, and damned if I don't. If I don't give catastrophists their "consensus" science people they're going to diss my guys as not being "consensus" approved. If I give them their "consensus" sciency-tists you're going to say it's hypocritical, because in the past I've pointed out the blunders, dirty deeds, and incompetence of those pretenders to science.

But yeah OK, I will concede. Let's both agree those guys are clowns, and not worth listening to. Doesn't matter. Go back to that same site. I forget exactly where it is there, but some place on that site they keep a record of all the studies on the Medieval warm period. That Briffa/Jones one was not unique. It was only handy. The idea was that if the fact is so unchallengeable even those crooks have to admit it, it has to be true.