Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

How can this be since CO2 levels keep climbing?

Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013

Myself I think there needs to be a major investigation into the climate scientist's who were so very wrong about what's happening right now and where the taxpayers money went, spent on what? With all the technology available how could they have been this wrong? Did they think no one would ever check or hold them accountable for the research grants they applied for? I'd say full audits for the taxpayers money they took needs to happen for all American Scientists. Any money granted to foreign scientists need to be audited as well. While we can't "force" them to cooperate, we should be able to freeze any funds currently allocated till they comply with an audit. The American Taxpayers have the right to know if we were ripped off or not.

 

New paper finds that the natural oscilations of the AMO controls artic sea ice.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-finds-arctic-sea-ice-is.html

This course is of no surprise to me as I have been arguing with warmmongers here that ambient air temperature is way down the list of factors that control arctic ice loss and gain.

 

It could just as likely be the spread of ice as glaciers melt and refreeze. Regardless, I don't think there is a thing we can do about it one way or the other. That is just human arrogance at work.

 

The arctic ice is increasing because it's warming.

 

While I know you are joking that is not outside of the realm of possibilities.

What directly drives arctic ice loss or gain more than another single factor is wind, wind direction and magnitude. Strong southerly winds break up and drive arctic ice south where it melts in warmer waters. If an arctic warm pattern were to lower temperature gradient and reduce wind it could have a positive effect on ice growth under a certain set of circumstances.

 

I do not think I would use only two years of data to make a decision. Climate change happens over decades and I have not decided one way or the other whether we are effecting things on a large scale. What I do know is it makes sense not to potty where you sleep, so a cleaner environment is a better one for all of us.

 

Since progressives push climate change out of legitimate fear for the planet's well-being and not because of some sort of Marxist political motive, I'm sure they will feel very relieved to hear this news. Thanks for posting.

 

No doubt they'll be rushing in here to express their gratification...any time now...give 'em a few more minutes...

 

Thread posted "Dec 19 2013, 11:38 PM". I'm shocked they aren't boasting how the EU's ETS is saving the world.

 

It's almost Christmas and in many Northeastern states it was 70 degrees yesterday and will be higher than that today. Although I am happy to hear any good news that indicates that global warming is slowing down it's not definitive yet by any means and when it comes from a thread that is solely meant to be a trolling thread I really don't put much weight into it. Waaa waaa liberal/conservative threads have about as much substance value as the conversations heard by kids on city corners.

 

Fast growth of thin skins of ice can blow away as fast as they grew.

Imagine the Arctic is a warehouse where you kept your money.

Decades ago, the entire floor was covered with bundles of $100 bills.

Then in the last 10 years, those bundles of $100 thinned and then started disappearing from half the floor area of your warehouse.

NOW, part of the bare floor area is covered with a thin sheet of single $1 that easily blow away in the slightest breeze.

If you think that restored thin cover of trivial amounts of money means you can relax and rejoice and spend like you did when that floor had a thick covering of $100 bills, you are a Denialist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html

 

It's an illusion!

 

Ooooops! I see the "daily fail" is at it again!!

Notice how they do not name the "scientists" who think we might be in for a "cooling phase" - and you know why? Because almost to a person they are the denialist scientists and you do not want them being shown to be wrong.

but once again do not confuse the word "could" with "will" and certainly do not confuse poor journalism with good science

 

I some degree you are right. There is a vast amount of difference between single year and multi-year ice

 

They just see the peaks and not the valleys. They don't seem to understand what a trend is.

 

OR the difference between "could" and "Will"

Any time a scientist says something could or might happen by a certain time they prance around shouting "it hasn't happened the whole thing is a scam - there is no global warming"

ANY excuse in a storm

 

I think that would explain why they cherry pick climate simulations. These simulations differ by input variables, using "what if" scenarios, so many "fail" at their predictions because some variables never end up occurring. They're just "could's" and not "will's", as you said, but the denialists will find a "could" and say, "See, all earth scientists are wrong because this model said that the earth is cooling." (And, they're usually referring to simulations, not models).

I make models (mostly with MATLAB or C++) and help with analysis. I get a kick out of them telling me how they work -- what an IV is, what multiple regression is, what squared deviation is, etc. I hear "would/could/should" often.

 

Well if you are going to go that route then you would also have to say that those "maybes" prove nothing and the "Science is setteled" crowd is wrong.

Eh?

 

If it's snowing it can't be getting warmer. Conservative logic 101.

 

Who says "science is setteled" (sic)? We humans progress precisely because science is not settled. Unlike conservatives who live in 1954 in their minds...

 

That would be the Al gore crowd. That would also be the label anyone that has any doubt whatsoever a "denier" crowd.

- - - Updated - - -

You were saying?

 

Al Gore? When did he qualify as a climatologist? He's a politician. I don't listen to politicians.

 

http://www.livescience.com/39954-with-ipcc-report-climate-change-is-settled-science.html

I guess "extremely likely" is more scientific eh?

 

Wow. If a simulation predicts that increased CO2 levels will cause greater temperature extremes or more chaotic weather, and that happens, then maybe increased CO2 is a significant variable? Maybe CO2 emissions should be reduced to prevent global catastrophes? Hmmm?

Cleaning up the environment is expensive, but the catastrophes caused by man-made climate change won't exactly be cheap to fix.

 

Yep, it's the "look outside of my bedroom window" analysis on climate change....LOL.