2009 Sea Ice Update

To help support Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Go to
http://climatecrocks.com/

The 2009 ice melt season has just been completed at the northern polar cap, and observations confirm that the arctic ocean ice cover is continuing a steady decline.
The last three melt seasons represent the 3 lowest summer ice areas in the satellite record.
Satellite measurements of total summer ice surface have been on a downward slope for 3 decades. In 2007, ice area suffered a spectacular and unpredicted
slump. In the last 2 years, summer expanse rebounded from the catastrophic collapse, to
mere precipitous decline.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Vic Longdong]

hay alarmist nazi ever heard of the glacier girl its p38 lighting ww2 fighter plane it was forced down and crash landed in greenland in 1942, well it was recovered from the ice not a easy job because 250ft if snow and ice covered the aircraft. So since 1942 250feet of snow has fallen doesn't sound like melting going on there does it ,why don't you put that in your propaganda video greenman

[greenman3610]

that it snows in greenland is, I think, well known, and not news to anyone but the denialist fringe.

[Vic Longdong]

you lot of alarmist nazi make out all the ice has melted and its the end of the world as we know it. Al Gore, if Greenland melted the sea will rise twenty feet what crap. Your a bunch of crazed money motivated con artist that's what you are

[greenman3610]

Sea level, the subject of the new video!

watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ

[Quercuspalustris50]

(...cont.) Knowing physics is not enough to be an expert in climatology. Obviously you have to have a well founded background in physics, but the background alone doesn't qualify a person as an expert in climatology. What is E+M, electricity and magnetism? I enjoy the Fourier analysis videos here on YouTube (that's more electrical engineering), and also like the tensor algebra and calculus, concerning general relativity, but E+M sounds quite boring (sorry, if that is is your field).

[Quercuspalustris50]

My point is that even with my science degree, I do not have enough qualifications to render an opinion against any climatologist or climate study, regardless of "what side of the argument", as you put it, they are on. Thus a person tinkering with whatever physics program you are referencing doesn't have enough qualifications either. What physics program are you talking about, anyway? The reason I did well in school, was because they never asked very many hard questions on the tests.

[Quercuspalustris50]

(...cont.) But the context of your statement almost seemed to imply that you thought the rising levels of CO2 at present had something to do with super volcanoes. You were trying to make a point that in the past, CO2 variability has been greater than today's variability. And to that I will incidentally add that we don't want to go back to ancient variability because is creates a probability that our environment could become less hospitable for modern civilization.

[Quercuspalustris50]

Anyway. My whole point was this: You said, "This world has a history of super volcanoes that dwarf any kind of man made contributions". I asked you how much CO2 is released from a super volcano, such as the Toba or the Yellowstone eruption. I asked you that just to see if you knew the facts or were just creating irrational argument. You're statement wasn't necessarily a bad one: Past CO2 levels have been several multiples of today's levels, most likely from volcanic activity. (cont...)

[Quercuspalustris50]

(...cont.) All the cross checks reveal a similar level of error: About 3% in general, and about 1% for the most modern dating techniques. The agreement of the cross checks and the fact that their error levels are consistent adjudicates each methods presumptions, making the presumptions highly probable. It's like having a bunch of independent jigsaw pieces that fit together really well, which creates an intelligible picture.

[Quercuspalustris50]

Dating is based on cross checks of different methodology: multiple forms of radiometric dating is verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods. (cont...)

[sounddoctorin]

THe time is based on presumptions. A variety of presumptions that could alter those dates by vast amounts. So yeah you don't know the volume because you dont' know the dates. You claim to know the dates and make worthless presumption based writings and POST THEM AS FACTS. This makes you a time wasting ignoramus so I'm done with you. No point talking to fools who think they KNOW things that are not established.

[sounddoctorin]

"aced all of them without much work on my part"...so you cheated? lol. If you take classes like E+M you d some work. Lots...of work. EVERYONE becomes INSTANTLY a child EINSTEIN when they are on youtube threads. When I see that kind of crap I just block the person. What's the point in talking to an arrogant idiot?

THERE ARE CLIMATOLOGISTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT IGGO.

Duh. SO it's all which ones you choose to tout. IF you *really* have the physics, then you'd know WHICH to believe.