Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...574815,00.html

It's a trick. As we all know, all ice is growing and global warming is propaganda only, in fact it's getting colder.

[SUBMAN1]

More dumb science - not checking all the facts. If you did, you would find that the amount of ice is unchanged. It is just down in Antarctica right now.

You would also know that these passages have opened many times in the past and they have already been sailed many times before, over 100 years ago even.

-S

PS. The reporters are so stupid, they say its the FIRST TIME EVER! Hahahahahaha!

[SUBMAN1]

Some additional data - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

-S

[mrbeast]

Maybe you should read the 'small print' at the bottom of your article Subman? :hmm:

Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect. We reproduce Walt Meier's response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:

The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid. The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing, in a plot right on the same page as where Mr Goddard obtained the images he uses for his own analysis:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.
Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.

Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.
"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

So what does the NSIDC data show?

From their own website:

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Marks out of 10 for effort Subman, but no cigar I'm afraid.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Marks out of 10 for effort Subman, but no cigar I'm afraid.

Just a question -do you bother to read anything before you post it? Go back and read my post:

Originally Posted by Subman1

If you did, you would find that the amount of ice is unchanged. It is just down in Antarctica right now.

You get a 10 out of 10 for trying however, that is if you don't need a geography lesson. :p

-S

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Just a question -do you bother to read anything before you post it? Go back and read my post:

You get a 10 out of 10 for trying however, that is if you don't need a geography lesson. :p

-S

Im sorry I think you might have missed this:

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

You posted a link to an article which wrongly asserts that ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are recovering and that in the Arctic ice levels are 30% above the 10% increse over last year (which was the lowest recorded extent of Arctic ice) I simply showed that your article is not only wrong, but it even says so itself! ice levels aren't 'unhanged' they are falling; read the bottom of my quote.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's a trick. As we all know, all ice is growing and global warming is propaganda only, in fact it's getting colder.

You forgot that some of us don't think it's man-made, or at least not significantly affected by humans yet.


edit- Sorry August, no zillion from me. LOL at the post though!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

You forgot that some of us don't think it's man-made, or at least not significantly affected by humans yet.

Believe me, I haven't.

[Happy Times]

Here is a interesting study about how most computer models that predict the global warming are in conflict with actual observations. Im all for getting of fossile fuels as fast as possible for different reasons, but climate change isnt on top of that list.

PDF http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.”

“On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”