Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

you confirm again you that can't read a graph...

 

LOL and you are just arguing the parrot is only sleeping

 

for the people that can't read a graph, the blue and purple is 1979 - 1997. The 1998 - 1999 is called a step jump. Funny thing is Co2 has increased on a very smooth curve, however 1998 just happened to be a super el nino....coincidence ?

 

just for the heck of it here is 1998 - 2011

 

No you believe the lies and deceptions. This is what is happening today

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into "integrity issues." A watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear, but a source familiar with the investigation said late Thursday that placing Monnett on leave had nothing to with scientific integrity or the article.





Then there is the lies we were told about carbon holding heat


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....'hi, kids, can you spell "cherry picking"?'.....LOLOL...here's another graph from the same source showing the actual trend (green line) over the whole period of satellite measurements.....for a little 'reversed' cherry picking, check out the trend line for the period from 1992 to 1999 (light blue line).

 

Yes, and it perfectly describes what you have done.

As I have explained to you before, the 50-70-year PDO is the dominant component of temperature changes on decadal scales (which you have used, above). So unless you take the trend over an integral number of PDO cycles, the PDO is effectively GUARANTEED to inject a spurious trend. If you want to measure a temperature trend that includes the PDO peak of 1998, you have to go back 60 years to the previous peak around 1940. If you want to go to 2010, start in 1950. Science-denier AGW Kool-Aid cultists always take their trends over the PDO's up-phase of 1970-1998, and pretend that represents the overall trend. It doesn't.

 

The 29-year trend is actually slightly steeper from 1982-2010 than 1970-1998, your supposed pdo peak.



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gi...99/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1982/to:2011/trend

PDO has little to do with global warming, any more than the stock market. It's just a dumb correlation argument put forth by deniers in absence of any robust scientific explanation.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm

 

Here's some more info on the current state of the Arctic ice cover.

Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice is as its lowest extent for this time of early July. The melting season for Arctic ice continues until the end of August.
July 9, 2011
(excerpt)
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says sea ice in the Arctic ocean is retreating at a record pace. It's currently at it's lowest extent for early July. Previous, July 2007 was the lowest extent before this year. Back in 2007 by the end of the melting season, the melting of the Arctic sea ice was the most in recorded history. That year lost more ice in one year than in the past 28 years combined according to the NSIDC.

 

Nope, GIS is just the AGW Kool-Aid cult science-denier temperature record of choice because it shows global temperatures continuing to rise higher and higher after 1998, when the earth clearly hasn't been getting warmer:

Which latter shows about the same temperature correlation as CO2....

Wrong. Taking a global temperature trend over the rising half of the PDO cycle is exactly as scientifically valid as taking a sea level trend over the half-day period between low tide and high tide. The 60-year oscillation in the global temperature record is visually obvious.

 

So you ignore my articles in post 30 that show the lies and deceptions on Global warming

 

They duped you again.....for about the millionth time.....guess you denier cultists jumped on the propaganda wagon a bit too soon here.

Scientist suspension is about project's management

By MARK THIESSEN
Associated Press
Aug 1, 10:09 PM EDT
(excerpts)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- The government's suspension of an Arctic scientist was related to how a polar bear research project was awarded and managed and not his earlier scientific work detailing drowned polar bears, a watchdog group said Monday.

PEER has claimed officials initially didn't tell Monnett why he was suspended or under investigation. After an Associated Press story on the investigation last week, the agency's director informed Alaska staff that the action was unrelated both to an article that Monnett wrote about presumably drowned Arctic polar bears and to his scientific work.


***

 

No it is because it was a lie the polar bear population was not in decline


http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

 

No, that's the spin your denier cult puppet masters are trying to put on it but you are wrong on all counts.

Alaska Dispatch
(excerpts)
On Friday, July 29th, BOEMRE spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz sent an email to Alaska Dispatch saying:

"The agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong".


Alaska Dispatch
(excerpts)
The following email was forwarded to Alaska Dispatch Friday, July 30th, and was sent from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich to BOEMRE's Alaska regional office employees.

"Dear Colleagues,

I wanted to send you a brief note of explanation and support. I regret very much the negative publicity over the past 24 hours that has resulted from one of your colleagues being placed on administrative leave in connection with an investigation by the Office of Inspector General. We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated."


Both survival rates and total population size of some polar bear population appear to be in decline and are also significantly correlated with changes in ice distribution and the duration of the open water season, according to a recent study from the Beaufort Sea region.

Polar Bear Status: In Decline
Polar Bears International
(excerpts)
...one of 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable, and eight are declining mainly due to global warming induced loss of critical sea ice habitats. ...this compares negatively with our last report in 2005, which found that five subpopulations were declining, five were stable, and two were increasing.

Lone polar bear In the proceedings of our 2001 meeting, we reported only one population known to be declining and suspected one other might be. So, over the last decade, the global trend in polar bear populations has been solidly negative: In 2001, we reported only one population in decline. By 2010, the number of declining populations had jumped to eight.

Climate Change Causing Polar Bear Birth Rates to Decline
Marine Science Today
February 9, 2011
(excerpt)
New research, published in Nature Communications on February 8, from the University of Alberta has linked declining number of cubs in polar bear litters with loss of sea ice.




***

 

Of course they say that because they are in damage control to not hurt the integrity of the scientific community.

Problem is they are to late

 

No one with any intelligence questions the integrity of the world scientific community. It is only the dimwitted dupes of the fossil fuel industry who have been fooled into swallowing that line of BS.

 

If you don't question it you are deceived. The integrity of the scientific community has gone to 0 thanks to the corruption of the global warming community. Just as the lie the scientist told that Polar bears population was declining. It was a lie but our government believed it and passed laws that were not needed.

We now will have more laws from the EPA that will hurt the economy because of the lies of Global Warming

 

then you'll have no problem posting a link to that lie of bear populations...tell us which one scientist has such power over the international scientific community studying bears in 5 countries that he or she can hoodwink the scientists of those five countries involved at the same time...

the majority of bear habitats of which there is sufficient data, show a decline in numbers only one shows an increase...

 

Nice spin except the population grew 1950 to 1980 and has since then remained steady.

So this scientist was deceiving to promote Global warming

http://askville.amazon.com/polar-bear-population-1950's/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=54815153

 

your response is to link to a blog site? to a posting by some random internet poster newbie5668765 who is a expert of what exactly?...not only that he/she cites wiki as it's source but the wiki article agrees with my sources...both you and newbie568765 can't comprehend what it's the article...

an epic fail on your part...classic example of deniers having no clue...

 

Nice try when you have no proof attack the source. The truth is the scientist lied and the polar bear population has not declined bot is still remaining steady.

That is what the links have shown you have shown or proven nothing

 

Your silly delusions are tiresome.

Meanwhile, speaking of polar bears, in the real world...

Both survival rates and total population size of some polar bear population appear to be in decline and are also significantly correlated with changes in ice distribution and the duration of the open water season, according to a recent United States Geological Survey study from the Beaufort Sea region.
***

Polar Bear Status: In Decline
Polar Bears International
(excerpts)
...one of 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable, and eight are declining mainly due to global warming induced loss of critical sea ice habitats. ...this compares negatively with our last report in 2005, which found that five subpopulations were declining, five were stable, and two were increasing.

Lone polar bear In the proceedings of our 2001 meeting, we reported only one population known to be declining and suspected one other might be. So, over the last decade, the global trend in polar bear populations has been solidly negative: In 2001, we reported only one population in decline. By 2010, the number of declining populations had jumped to eight.
***

Climate Change Causing Polar Bear Birth Rates to Decline
Marine Science Today
February 9, 2011
(excerpt)
New research, published in Nature Communications on February 8, from the University of Alberta has linked declining number of cubs in polar bear litters with loss of sea ice.




***

 

So you found a group that supports Global Warming and make figures reflect that


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/international-conservation-group-global

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/terence-p-jeffrey/2011/05/19/no-decline-polar-bear-population

 

just out of curiosity anyone been watching what has been happening the last few days. I will just post links not the charts since the charts are frigging huge

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

these are odd because the arctic temps are still above 0C and the ice loss should not be leveling off for another month

 

the truth was in you own link but you're not able to comprehend it...I'm embarrassed for you