The Terrible Consequences Ice Minimum In Sept!!!

image

The ice is now the same as it has been for the last 13 years. 

source

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to The Terrible Consequences Ice Minimum In Sept!!!

  1. miked1947 says:

    Just a typical wind event!

  2. miked1947 says:

    The ultimate answer to what will happen in the Arctic to the ice:

  3. miked1947 says:

    Can we help the situation:

  4. suyts says:

    Nice ones, Mike!!!

  5. miked1947 says:

    For good measure

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    Ah, so THIS is the fallback postion. The wind just blew the ice and it opened up some water. And of course the scientifically factual climate skeptics predicted this would happen, leaving egg on the face of those foolish alarmists last fall.
    Sunsetomy just told me that is is ALL AMO and the ice will come back in a few years. That is of course what has been said in WUWT and Goddard and National Review, Human events, Forbes, etc for the last decade.

    • copernicus34 says:

      its actually not the fallback position. NOAA (or was it NASA?) came out and admitted that severe storms caused the ice breakup; as was mentioned in several blog sites throughout the end of summer. so try again!!!

      • philjourdan says:

        Stop confusing Tony with actual data and facts!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Nobody, “admitted” the storm caused severe ice break up, EVERYONE who knows anything about arctic ice was quite awre of waht large storms do to thin ice> and a number of people predicted this would be the excuse used by deniers for the record low minimum. If tyou can show me ANY metric that indicates 600K SqKilometers of ice was remopved by this storm, i will be happy to acknowledge the possibility.
        it is amazing to me how ideologues, when confronted with reality that compeltely undermines their beliefs , invent explanations to expalin reality away. And as the comment sbelow show there is NO competing theory, excpet for the magical “natural variation, that explains everything. AFTER this record minimum people ran to the AMO cycle, which is no suddenly all the rage. Yes, the ice is low now, but in a few years it will recover. Find me someone on these blogs who was saying that in 2006.
        It was quite clear that the storm just made the new record slightly larger. there have been studies to that effect, but I am sure they were by scientists looking for grant money so you can disount them.
        goddard banned me from his blog because i was on his case Since MARCH about a new minimum. He spent the whole spring and summer raining ridicule on warmists for NOT being willing to bet there would be a new minimum, yet he dodged my constant efforts to have him back the logical conclusion to his claims. he banned me right before the newminimum when I said he wouldnt make predictions (which I had clealry said before), and I was clearly talking about SIE minimum. Instead of allowing myself to clarify my point, he said he was tired of all my lies (ring a bell Phil?), but he clearly could not let himself be shown to be wrong, by someone who was on his case about it for 6 months for all his accolytes to see. Especially someone who doesnt even qualify as an amateur.

        Bottom line. YES. there was a storm. Yes it had an effect, largely because the ice was so thin in much of the arcitc then, NO it did NOT cause the new minimum.
        this is all so obvious, and yet you are all so intent on patting each others back.

        • miked1947 says:

          Tony:
          The severity of the storm lead to the compacting of the ice. Simple fact. It did not really matter the thickness of the ice with the wind patterns that were experienced in that region. Severe winds are a natural feature in the Arctic Ocean and the blow more ice out of the region during the Winter than during most other seasons. Ice is always being moved around in the Arctic and either compacting or spreading out. If you believe ice is smooth and flat, you have not seen many of the pictures.
          You are not even taking into account the activities of the Ice Breakers that are in the Arctic Ocean, whose JOB is to BREAK up the ICE so other ships can pass through.
          It really does not matter if there is ice or not in the Arctic! The entire thing is a fantasy to scare people like you into believing “The Sky Is Falling”!

        • PhilJourdan says:

          “it is amazing to me how ideologues, when confronted with reality that compeltely undermines their beliefs , invent explanations to expalin[sic] reality away.”

          Talk about describing oneself to a T.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          True to form Phil coems back with his devastating critique of my presentaion of facts.
          Mikey of course does not engage any of my facts, but somehow thinks that 12ft thick ice reacts much the same as 2 ft thick ice when buffeted by wind.
          In spite of my ignorance of this issue, i will dare to say that he is wrong about this. Anyone care to jump in and show me how he is right about this.
          And then he lobs in the silly thing about Smooth flat ice. yes, I should NOT have mentioned how smooth and flat the arctic ice is. Again my ignorance showing……. Wiat, Apparently I said nothing about this and he just made it up. bad boy miked.
          And then of course the thousands of ice breakers in the arctic that chew up the ice therby making the movement of millions of square kilometers of ice so easy. Miked. I think you will have to reference that study. i seem to have missed it.
          And finally. “It does not matter if there is ice or not in the arctic.
          Ok I am game Miked
          Tony: It DOES TOo MATTER!!!!!
          Miked : DOES NOT!!!
          TONY :DOES TOO!!!
          Miked: DOES NOT!!!
          TONY: DOES TOO!!!

          I win.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          RIF Tony. I tire of telling you to learn to read. I merely quoted a statement of yours and observed it was autobiographical. I made no comment regarding your debate with Mike.

          You really need some basic English – grammar, composition, spelling, and understanding. You demonstrate a complete lack in all categories.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          Yes, I figured out what you meant pretty quickly. I guess that means that there were no lies in my comment this time?

          And you KNOE how much it herts my feelings at whne you go attackin me spellin. grandma ( what does she have to do with it), composition an unastandin

        • kelly liddle says:

          Hey Tony if you are using your real name maybe we are distantly related my mothers maiden name is Duncan and we also both annoy Phil at times.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Kelly, you do not annoy me. I find your perspective to be refreshing, as it is from a different land. Tony annoys me with his insistence upon refusing to learn (stupidity). I do not believe he is naturally stupid, just has an aversion to learning, which is the definition of stupidity.

    • DirkH says:

      We don’t have to predict anything because we have no weird theory to defend. The proponents of the CO2AGW theory have to make predictions – which they try – and we will then see whether real events falsify the predictions – which they do.

      • miked1947 says:

        Only since they started making the “Predictions”. However they also claim they do not predict but only provide “What If” Scenarios. We all know their “What if” Scenarios are equal to fairy tales, designed to scare the gullible.
        They are really not defending an actual theory but a consensus “Opinion”! It is not a theory until it is in a testable format, AGW, ACCC or any other acronym they want to use can not be tested in the real world.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Mike! Are you sure those are not W(ha)T(i)F Scenarios?

        • miked1947 says:

          Gator:
          Whichever term is used, I think they pull them from their Nether regions! Their heads are stuck so far up, that is where they have to originate. WTF is a good description! ;)

    • miked1947 says:

      Tony D:
      After all this time discussing this stuff and you still do not understand! The ice conditions at the poles are directly related to long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns. Those patterns can spread out the ice, compact the ice, send it out of the region or, if weak, allow it to grow in place. The wind is a major part of those patterns, so this is not a fall back position but the main line as the AMO is one of the long term weather patterns that have been observed affecting that region.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        mike,
        I understadn completely.
        None of what you say is new to me or really anyone who has spent an hour looking at the research.
        So can you show me your comments where you say that from 2000- 2015 SIE is going to be much lower than normal becuase of the AMO?

        • miked1947 says:

          Tony:
          Whether it be AMO, AO, PDO or a combination of the three the ice extent in the Arctic region will be affected by Ocean Atmosphere weather patterns. We know they exist, however we do not have the ability to get proper measurements on those systems to know what they will do in the future. In some cases they can not even separate the effects of the systems and do not fully comprehend what is totally involved as to little time has passed monitoring them with current technology.
          Sea Ice Extent is gong to do what Sea Ice Extent has done since the Arctic Ocean was formed. There will be years with lesser and years with greater extent during early Fall.

        • suyts says:

          True that. In fact, there are still some who argue the AO and AMO are essentially the same. But, they’re not. And then there’s the air currents……

          Tony, you bring up Steve from time to time. One of the things he is good at is spotting the errors in thought. What ever is happening in the arctic, we not it isn’t much about melt, at least as a primary cause. The temps simply don’t average high enough, yet.

  7. Latitude says:

    Well….if you start your graph at the LIA…..this is what it looks like

  8. miked1947 says:

    Dirk:
    One of the interesting things I learned about their “Predictions, is many of their “Predictions” Contradict other predictions they have made. Each Scenario they provide falsifies a number of other scenarios they have provided. That is why they can claim that any outcome we experience has been “Projected” as being caused by Human induced factors! That discredits the entire field of Climatology and will discredit the entire field of science, if it has not already!

    • Latitude says:

      and on that note……the pea under the shell
      Did you see this argument on WUWT?
      Joel is trying to argue that the computer games predicted no global warming for periods over 15 years……
      …he doesn’t realize that if that’s true…then the computer games would also have to be correct if global warming stopped completely

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comments

      • miked1947 says:

        I quit “discussing” with folks like that a few years ago. It was a “Discussion” about these things that resulted in my not being able to post at a number of CLB* sites!
        *Chicken Little Brigade!!!!

      • suyts says:

        LMAO!!! They predicted no warming for 15 years retroactively!

        • Latitude says:

          ..and also, if global warming stops forever……they predicted that too!

        • suyts says:

          No doubt. And, they’ve predicted more snow and less snow and more droughts and more rain ……..

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Actually that is not true. I saw a lecture from someone quite a few years ago who was worreid that natural variation could hide the trend of increasing global temps for ten years or more and that energy companies would use that to prevent action on ACC. Of course he did not know there weould be an entire ideological denier industry on it’s own by now.

        • suyts says:

          And, he didn’t know the energy companies would encourage this madness.

          Sure Tony, there may have been a couple out of thousands saying such. There were not models projecting it. But, the argument is a two edge sword. I think natural variability is what showed the warming the 15-20 years prior.

  9. dan says:

    when you give up trying to make sense to the alarmists brew a cup of tea and :

    • DirkH says:

      You asked for it…
      Liliput – Eisiger Wind (Icy Wind) – 1981

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Great song. but I keep telling you guys, you are NOT going to get laid playing music that the hot chicks you lust after have no interest in.
      look for something from Bon Iver, Modest Mouse, Amanda Palmer, or St. Vincent. Jeesh even David Byrne played with St. Vincent. Of course maybe you have just given up on that, and then I take back my suggestion. Listen to your old people music after all.

      • suyts says:

        You’re killing me!!! Old people music? Well maybe…. :)

      • Jim Masterson says:

        >>
        Tony Duncan says:
        February 10, 2013 at 9:58 pm

        but I keep telling you guys, you are NOT going to get laid playing music that the hot chicks you lust after have no interest in.
        <<

        I was a Navy pilot. Hot chicks lusted after me. Didn’t you ever see “An Officer and a Gentleman” or “Top Gun?”

        Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s