A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Billy T]

... Here's an article that covers the well known temperature spike in the artic that lasted a couple decades surrounding the 1930's. Yes there was less ice then. ...

I read your link and did not see any statement that there was less ice in 1930 (or any other year) than the past summer. I have seen sequence of satellite photos that extendes ~20 years into the past and they clearly show that summer ice extent, especially compared to last year (2008), is less than any prior year.

I did find this statement in your link:

"There is no water to melt the ice from below" {Greenland ice cover}.

That may be true for much of it but surface melt water USUALLY seeps down and flows under the ice to the sea, instead of over the ice to the sea. There are large "ice caves" this flow has carved out. Making an unqualified statement contract to these facts does not increase one's confidence in the remainer of his statements.

I have yet to look at links iceaura provides. I may get to them later, but assume that they challenge the statement that there was less ice in the Arctic ocean summer of 1930, and that is what I already thought. I.e. I read your link at see if my ideas about this were wrong. Your link is mainly about the temperatures, which I do not trust much, especially if the show steady warming as that can be a local artifact of increased local settlements buring ever more fuel to keep warm annually.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Well, higher temps melt ice. Imean, you know that's the obvious meaning in the temp readings.

Here's an article from 1922 for a little perspective on this 'arctic is warming! Ice is melting! Run for the hills it's CAGW!' stuff.

Yes there was less ice then, and it did continue for years.

This is from the Washington Post in 1922, see the media back then LOVED a good alarmist story just like they do today. This story in the Post cites the article I list above.

Washington Post (Associated Press)]
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

These are, as you can see, form eyewitness accounts.

 

[iceaura]

You also hear about Antarctica melting, more nonsense. Remember those satellite pics that got world attention of a HUGE shelf of ice breaking off of the Antarctic ice shelf? Oh that was played up as proof of CAGW. Though as of fall of last year even the extremists started reversing those claims, admitting the ice shelf was growing as normal, but still attributed the growth in Antarctic ice to CAGW

I haven't read any of your links, and after reading that I won't bother. You have been victimized by misinformation and invalid argument, quite obviously, and those links are likely sources.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

I haven't read any of your links, and after reading that I won't bother. You have been victimized by misinformation and invalid argument, quite obviously, and those links are likely sources.

I didn't expect most of you to do anything but wait for the IPCC to feed you your next opinion.

It's 'beneath' you to even look at other data or studies.

 

[iceaura]

It's 'beneath' you to even look at other data or studies.

No. It's beneath me to link to wherever you apparently got your views on the meaning of this or that glacier shrinking or growing, this or that ice shelf melting or growing, this or that account of ice free northern water in 1922, or maybe 1930, or the 1950s but it was southern water, or whatever time period you are talking about exactly.

If you care to link to actual data or studies I haven't seen, I would be happy to read them, as the topic interests me.

Btw: the Russians were surveying their northern ocean access by airplane all during the 1930s. This was a matter of considerable interest to them, as war obviously approached. There is no record, as far as I know, of their finding open passage through the Arctic ice at any time before 2007/2008. I linked to some of the data, above.

 

[Billy T]

To Dr. Mabuse:

Your post 122 with reprint of WP 1922 article is interesting but, as it states, shows an unusual Gulf Stream effect. I know for example that the Gulf Steam does wander a lot. Some times when it is close to the coast of Greenland, the warm vapor make constant fog along Greenland's coast and Norway's west coast waters are colder.

The salt content of the Gulf Stream water is significantly higher than the North Altantic water (both because part of the NA water is mixed with fresh water melted snow and ice & because the GS comes from the tropics where sun has concentrated the salt.) When the surface GS has cooled enough that the extra salt load makes it as dense as the sub-surface water it is flowing over, it goes unstable in the skinking as it is being cooled with "fingers" falling thru the colder water cooling it. Where this happens is very variable. The falling GS water act as piston and drive the general circultion of the Atlatic Ocean, both North and South and eventually that moving mass of water becomes warmer and being fresher (less salty) rises. (Some even flows into the Indian ocean before doing this.)

Thus, report of warm localized annual variation of ice cover along Norway's west coast all the way up into the arctic do NOT indicate that the Arctic Ocean ice is reduced. You have not correctly understood what the implications of the 1922 W.P. story about ice reduction on Norway's West coast area.

I do not know but bet it was colder off the English coast in 1922, with less of the typical "English Fog" as the Gulf Stream went further North before it sank to the bottom off Norway depriving England of its usuall warmth. - Check out my bet if you can.

As ice melts at 32F the temperature increases below that (say from 20 to 30F) do not as you state imply less ice. As satellite photos did not exist, the only way back in 1922 to know that there was less ice than now is if the "NW passage" was open an ships bound for China were using it. I think it was closed as it was when Henry Hutson tried to make it thru and die trying. AFAIK The NW passage opened for the first time a few years ago during summer - never before know to by human contact to have been open.

SUMMARY:
Nothing you have provided yet supports the claim the there was less ice covering the Arctic Ocean in 1922 than last summer.

Considering where New Zeland is, perhaps they like you, may have honestly misunderstood some reports and concluded that they implied less ice covered of the Arctic Ocean in 1930. It is stange that only The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition amoung the 400 scientists contributing to the "no globabl warming" report would include this extremely stong fact against the "global warming" POV. Fact they call themselves a "coalition" and have no university afiliation, also thends to make one think they are some sort of political action group, not real experts in the subject.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Billy we started measuring artic ice shelves with satellites in the 1970's.

SO when an alarmist says "the lowest ice EVER!!!" it has the desired effect, obviously it has on you. In your own words you take that to mean this is the lowest ice has even been known to be. That's not anything even close to factual.

I posted link of eyewitness accounts form the last arctic warming period we know of, and the directly related effect of receding ice as a kind of perspective on that.

If you expect me to provide satellite maps of the arctic ice shelves in their 1930? You're off the mark. There are none. If you are so eager to stay with a alarmist exaggeration of the IPCC you are free to do so of course.

I like your healthy skepticism though. You should take it up just a notch when reading alarmists headlines of "lowest ice EVER!!!" and remember that is actually the lowest ice in just a tad over 30 years. Which is not enough time to even begin to understand a thing as massive and interdependently complicated as artic ice and the climate.

What I can tell you, and that article above is just an example, that back then people who looked at the climate said the arctic ice was disappearing, there was less ice than even the native tribes of the north could remember. And that it was unusually warm up there. They took temp readings. We did monitor such things even back then. We show the temps were higher back then than they are now, there is a logical assumption to be made there are warmth melts ice.

If you simply correlate that with the temp readings of the arctic over the last century in the graph above, it's pretty easy to see that it was warmer in the arctic back then, and there were many eyewitness reports of receding ice in the arctic. Sailors said they had never sailed that far north, etc. Eyewitness accounts form people who knew that area.

To hold some position that you will continue to lend credence to a tiny data sample, and the alarmist CAGW! stories to go with it, when even at a glance it appears the arctic may heat and cool, and the ice may expand and recede accordingly in a cycle. Is just not being logical.

Here's a link you might read on how the long terms are purposefully ignored to get an 'alarmist' headline for the media. Most people remember those false headlines as fact, and wait for the next alarmist headline to confirm what they already erroneously believe. Most people I discuss this with simply regurgitate alarmist headlines, and IPCC press releases, and that's all they know on the topic. Like those here in this thread.

Notice this is form 2002, skeptical and informed scientists weren't believing the alarmist crap back then. But their findings NEVER get headlines.

 

[Billy T]

Billy we started measuring artic ice shelves with satellites in the 1970's.
SO when an alarmist says "the lowest ice EVER!!!" it has the desired effect, obviously it has on you. In your own words you take that to mean this is the lowest ice has even been known to be. That's not anything even close to factual. ...

As I made minor contributions to design of some of the radar sea and ice surface satellites I am well aware of that. They were also used to measure the Gulf Stream flows. (Corolis effect, causes the surface of the GS to be tilted, with the tilt directly proportional to the northward componet of its speed. One of the APL satelltes could measure average sea surface elevation changes to a few cm accuracy. A freind of mine at APL , J.A., left a few years later to take a very high position in NOAA and continue the research the APL satellites made possible.)

No. Your are falsely presuming to know what has affect my opinions. Perhaps you read too quickly what I wrote?

In post 126 I said:
"As ice melts at 32F the temperature increases below that (say from 20 to 30F) do not as you state imply less ice. As satellite photos did not exist, the only way back in 1922 to know that there was less ice than now is if the "NW passage" was open an ships bound for China were using it. I think it was closed as it was when Henry Hutson tried to make it thru and die trying. AFAIK The NW passage opened for the first time a few years ago during summer - never before know to by human contact to have been open."

I told how one could get information about the ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean in the pre-satellite era. Mentioned tha it was by human contact such as ships trying to find a way thru the ice cover, starting with Henry Hutson's efforts. Has any ship made it thru prior to 2005? I think not, but if you can find documentation that one has (other than the ocassonal submarine traveling UNDER the ice) please give a link to the report. BTW, I think it was a US Polaris sub that first reached the North Pole. It did use it sonar to deterimine the ice thickness above it on the journey. (Both the water / ice & the ice / air interfaces give a strong relfection. The speed of sound in ice is well known so this difference, the average ice thickness, should have less than a meter error.) If the data is not already declasified, I see not reason why it could not now be. Perhaps a repeat of the trip and measurements would be useful for this discussion.

 

[madanthonywayne]

BTW, I think it was a US Polaris sub that first reached the North Pole. It did use it sonar to deterimine the ice thickness above it on the journey. (Both the water / ice & the ice / air interfaces give a strong relfection. The speed of sound in ice is well known so this difference, the average ice thickness, should have less than a meter error.) If the data is not already declasified, I see not reason why it could not now be. Perhaps a repeat of the trip and measurements would be useful for this discussion.

When was that? It would be nice to have some real data rather than the speculation upon speculation we usually deal with in global warming (or wait, I mean "climate change") debates.

 

[Billy T]

When was that? It would be nice to have some real data rather than the speculation upon speculation we usually deal with in global warming (or wait, I mean "climate change") debates.

I do not remember but at least 25, perhaps 30, years ago I think. Certainly long enough ago to be an interesting comparison with repeat run today, during the same week of the year.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Billy on the northwest passage stuff:

You might find this an interesting article. It cover the history of the men who sailed those waters for a living in the late 1700/early 1800's and their recording of massive ice losses and an attempt at the northwest passage.



This is just another example of the melting of the arctic ice being a cyclical thing. I have cited the example from 1920-1940, here is one form the early 1800's citing unprecedented ice melt and loss of ice shelves.

 

[Billy T]

Thanks for the very interesting link to history of Arctic ice cover information. Here are a few of my observations and condensation of your link while reading it (exact quotes are in blue text.):

“The same person who has never been before able to penetrate to the westward of the Meridian of Greenwich in these latitudes was this year able to proceed to 10°, 30′W where he saw the coast of East Greenland and entertained no doubt of being able to reach the land… ice which has this year surrounded the northern coast of Ireland in unusual quantity and remained there unthawed till the middle of August…” From text immediately above the Arctic Region map (Unfortunately there are no page numbers)

This is strong evidence (No other possibility) that the Gulf Stream had shifted westward to melt the ice normally attached to the East coast of Greenland as it failed to warm Ireland and England as it normally does. – Exactly what I predicted, prior to knowing of this link, in post 126 where I said: “I do not know but bet it was colder off the English coast” when the gulf steam went further north than normal and melted the ice along Norway’s West coast during the summer of 1922.
THIS HAS NOTING TO DO WITH ARCTIC ICE COVERAGE. It is the common wandering Gulf Stream effect.
--------------------------------------Condensing from the link’s text:
In 1776, the British Government offered 20,000 Lbs (a huge sum back then) to first to get with in 1 degree of the North Pole. James Cook, commanding the “Resolution”, and George Vancouver, commanding the sister ship “Discovery,” tried the Pacific Ocean approach in 1778 summer, but failed (but got to at least to what is now called “Vancouver Island”) . In 1806, trying the Atlantic approach Scoresby’s ship broke thru sea ice to Spitsbergen Island, only 9 degrees from the pole and no one got as far for the 21 years (until 1827 when the pole was reached by traveling over the frozen ice in dog sleds, not by ship.)

In summers of 1816 & 1817 the Gulf Stream again had shifted westward and ice covering the Davis Straight (west side of Greenland) melted. (Some of the largest icebergs drifted south to 40 degrees!) So John Ross tried to make it thru going west of Greenland and also David Buchan tried to get a North West passage going the long way around the polar ice cover. (Past Spitsbergen Island and the north coast of Russia. A route Nansen would later use too.) This because more prize money had been offered for either route (No longer necessary to get within 1 degree of the pole – just get between Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.)
“Thus began a series of expeditions that lasted for sixty years.” – In fact longer as there was no successful ship expedition to the North Pole until 1906, when the iron ship, Roosevelt,* crushed thru the ice. (61 earlier attempts failed, the first recorded by westerners being in 1576 by Sir Martin Frobisher (N. W. Passage Expedition).*

In Nansen’s 1893 expedition in his ship Fram,** which first went along the Siberian coast and then turned North but was soon frozen in the ice for at least three years, drifted with the ice to 86.04 North. Nansen and a companion abandoned ship On March 14, 1895 and used dogs sleds to go further north and never tried to return to the Fram (They did not know where it was as it continued to drift, mainly westward.) but headed for the closest land where they made stone shelter, and lived on blubber and polar bear meat during the third winter. For more on Nansen & Johansen’s struggle to survive see:
http://www.arcticwebsite.com/NansenJourney.html Here is a sample of that text (a link found in the main text):

“Their clothing was worn to rags, which had become so sodden with oil {from the blubber lamp} that it could be wrung out of them. In conditions like these no approach to cleanliness is possible. In a tussle with a bear Johansen received a blow on the cheek from the creature’s paw. Nansen remarks that the only result was to scrape off some of the grime, so that portions of the white skin were visible. There is little record of this time. The journal was neglected from August 24 until December 6. ..."

SUMMARY: Despite many European attempts since 1576, ice has covered the Arctic Ocean, too thick for any ship, not designed as an icebreaker to pass thru. AFAIK only modern steel icebreaker ship can transit the N.W. passage between Atlantic and Pacific oceans and few, if any have done so as they usually get blocked by ice and not all can even retreat thru their broken ice trail, without aid from another.
I.e. Impenetrable ice is known by European efforts to have covered the Arctic Ocean for the last 433 years.
----------------
*For a list of 61 known*** expeditions, all failing due to the ice cover, see (a sublink of Nansen link above found in the main text):
http://www.arcticwebsite.com/expeditions.html

** A replica of the Fram exists on a small “museum island” in Oslo’s harbor. (Near the Viking ship, which was raised from the bottom of the sea.) I have been inside it. From memory, I would guess the ribs are wooden beams of square cross section at least 15 inches on an edge and very closely spaced. Nansen knew what the ice could do to crush a lesser ship.

***Surely there were Pacific approach expeditions from Japan, China and Eastern Russia also, probably much earlier, when Europe was still in the “dark ages.” If we knew the Eastern literature, probably there is irrefutable evidence for the continuous ice cover of the Arctic Ocean for more than 1000 years.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

I think I have perspective now.

You are clinging to the alarmist story of the first time the Northwest Passage has been open in 30 years. But as I described above you are applying the 'first time ever' label to it, instead of being factual and just staying 'the first time in 30 years'. (Which BTW is not accurate even at that)

So this is sort of the 'acid test' with you... then I'll focus on in on how little you know on that topic, because so little is spoon fed to the masses by the media on it. You have to make it your business to go looking for that data.

You are incorrect in your conclusions about the articles I posted earlier arctic ice receding for several reasons, but let's skip that. I'll focus on the Northwest Passage.

Let's address the bullshit story the alarmists pumped out about the northwest passage being open for the first time in 2007. It's utter bullshit, and one need not have a historical perspective to see through that sort of nonsense. One need only be skeptical and knowledgeable enough in general to see through the alarmist's headline grabbing stories(they have an eager friend in the media).

Here is an example of the story you were suckered in by:



If only they could have been bothered to check their own records... they were too eager to spread alarmist bullshit to bother though.



Well looky there. The extremist bullshit is revealed to be just that by a story from 7 years earlier. Ironically by the same media who also reported the story you fell for. But even that story form 7 years earlier is only the 'tip of the iceberg', forgive my pun.

Like I said Billy, I like your skepticism. Too bad you don't apply it evenly.

You statements of how and when the Northwest passage have been open merely reveal how little you have looked in to this. You are wrong, and applying your skepticism in all the wrong places. You are also incorrect on people sailing through the Northwest Passage.

As you can see in that second BBC article a ship successfully sailed through the northwest passage, being frozen in only in winter, in 1906.

But what about the warming period I covered above that you dismissed in ignorance? In fact a boat sailed the entire northwest passage in ~1940-1942, then it turned around and made the passage BACK through the Northwest passage in a single season during 1944, and not a 'modern metal ice breaker' you mention, a wooden ship built in 1928:



Also the The USS Storis made the journey in 1957, that's right they sailed the Northwest Passage too.

Then again Dutch businessman Willy De Roos made a SOLO trip through he Northwest Passage in 1977, in a 20 foot sailing boat. If you watch the video below you see his pictures of open water with ice in it in the Northwest Passage:

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/international_politics/topics/2349-13665/

A team sailed the Northwest Passage in a catamaran using only wind power in ~1988, reporting ice only freezing over in the winter, which delayed their trip.

There are other passing through I could mention.

The truth is the arctic ice recedes and reforms cyclically, and it's been recorded for centuries. The arctic temperatures rise and lower again, and that's been tracked in ice cores going back 11,000 years.

If this doesn't wake you up to your own selective prejudice and skepticism nothing will. It's hard to keep your mind open after you form a theory on bad information, but it can be done.

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." - Thomas Jefferson

The next time you hear some extremist story grab headlines, maybe you will say to yourself: "They've been proven completely wrong in so many of their claims, indeed they have been caught outright lying on so many points, I don't think I will believe this until I've looked into it much further."

The simple truth is, the Northwest Passage has probably been open on many occasions in the past. It has been open to small vessels in the last ~30 years too.

 

[Billy T]

... You are clinging to the alarmist story of the first time the Northwest Passage has been open in 30 years.

No. I only read the link (and one of the sub links of it) YOU supplied carefully and summarized it in my post 132. - Noting that European data (61 failed efforts) confirm continuous ice coverage even in summer since the first attempt in 1576 - I.e. 433 years of ice covering the Arctic Ocean proven - probably longer if the Asian efforts (when Europe was in the dark ages) were known to us westerners.

...You have to make it your business to go looking for that data.

No, again. I have done ZERO searching. I only read your link and one of the sub links in it.
(I only read that one as my first wife was Norwegian and had seen / been inside replica of Nansen's Fram.)
At least 1/4 of my posts note that I hate to search, am not good at it, and rely on my memory instead. PLEASE STOP PRESUMMING THINGS ABOUT ME.

... Let's address the bullshit story the alarmists pumped out about the northwest passage being open for the first time in 2007. It's utter bullshit, and one need not have a historical perspective to see through that sort of nonsense. ...

I assume there is a great deal of BS putout by both sides, but I have not read any of it. I have only read the links you supplied.
Surely you do not intend to call your own links bull shit!

I now have read one more of yours - this one and reproduced its map and part of it below in blue text:


BBC: Sunday, 10 September, 2000, 10:44 GMT 11:44 UK
The Northwest Passage - without ice

This NW passage is entirely SOUTH of Canada’s Barry Islands, thru Canada! - Note route passes by Victoria Island.
Canada claims this entire route is inside Canada, and routinely patrols it with their police, not their navy.
Here is photo of Victoria Island's largest city, Cambrige Bay. I do not call that Arctic Ocean.
This photo added later (after post 135 was made) by edit:

(I have now done one search.)
This inland route, thru Canada, is ~15 degrees from the N. Pole. Not thru the Arctic Ocean, but a sequence of narrow straights between Canadian Islands.
Both here and along the Siberian coast the long summer days melt snow on the land which drains into the adjacent sea and tends to make the coastal waters ice free by the end of summer. The Canadian police boat completed its "news worthy" trip in September 2000, aided by this land-melt effect, which does seem to be increasing also. - It was a first, at least by a non-icebreaker - why BBC reported it.

"A Canadian police patrol boat has completed a voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage without encountering any pack ice. … The Canadian patrol boat the St Roch II … made the journey in nine weeks, less than half the time expected.
Most of the passage along the coast of Alaska and Canada lies north of the Arctic Circle … Scientific surveys of the Arctic by British and American submarines show that the thickness of the ice has been reduced by nearly half in the past 50 years."

Again please note this is from YOUR link. - The only ones I have read. In last bold part of it I see that my prior suggestion that the sumarine sonar data could tell accurately the ice thickness has been done - 50% of it has melted in last 50 years. - YOUR LINK, as summarized in post 132, PROVES Arctic Ocean has been ice covered for at least 433 years. Is YOUR link "alarmist Bull Shit"?

I may have been using the term "N.W. Passage" incorrectly to mean crossing thru the Arctic Ocean. It is clear that there is an inland sea route thru Canada south of Canada's Barry Island, but I am ONLY speaking of the ice cover of the Artic Ocean, not a sequence of narrow straights between Canadian islands.

PS: Probably you should stop providing me with links. All three I have have read have contradicted your POV. Especially the submarine data about the thickness of the Arctic Ocean ice cover reduced by 50% (in bold above). - It is surely correct with error in ice thickness measurments not more than 1 meter.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

No. I only read the link (and one of the sub links of it) YOU supplied carefully and summarized it in my post 132. - Noting that European data (61 failed efforts) confirm continuous ice coverage even in summer since the first attempt in 1576

All attempts made during the Little Ice Age Billy.

Not the best time to attempt that trek.

Again you are being extremely selective in what you acknowledge, that's your choice. Now you try to redefine what the Northwest Passage is. Okay.

You've been provided with more than enough data to shoot holes through the extremist stuff, and directly refute several of your own assertions already.

 

[Billy T]

All attempts made during the Little Ice Age Billy.

False, I think, but I'm not sure when that ended. See the list of the 61. Most are attempts to win the 20,000 pounds prize the British government created in 1818.

Again you are being extremely selective in what you acknowledge ...You've been provided with more than enough data to shoot holes through the extremist stuff, and directly refute several of your own assertions already.

No I am only using the links YOU provided. not being selective at all.

No, again - your links contradicts your claim that arctic ice has been thiner in the past. Especially the accurate submarine measurements that show a 50% reduction in thickness.

And No, I am not trying to redfine the N.W. passage. I have already admitted that I was wrong to imply it needed to go thru the Arctic Ocean. Clearly the Canadian police boat's route was a "N.W. passage," made entirely within Canadian waters via a sequence of narrow straights between Canadian Islands. I have already clarified to note that with "N.W. Passage" I was speaking only of one thru the Arctic Ocean, not a passage within Canada. You and the New Zeland group quoted in your original "400 scientists refute" post link also were only concerned with the Arctic Ocean ice coverage. If any change of subject has been made it was by you, but aidded by my improper use of "N.W. passage" even when the context and discussion was ONLY about the Arctic Ocean ice cover. I am and always have been discussing the Arctic Ocean ice ONLY - not ice in Canadian waters.

 

[iceaura]

If you expect me to provide satellite maps of the arctic ice shelves in their 1930?

There is plenty of data from aerial surveys of the Russian and US territory, Russian and US military stuff, from the 30s and 40s.

I linked to some of it, above.

There is also plenty of record of the weather, the hunting and traveling circumstances, and so forth, from the people who lived in the region.

And various biological and geological evidence abounds for the temperature regime and ice cover extent of the Arctic Ocean over the past few centuries.

None of it, AFAIK, points to a shrinkage of the summer ice cover matching that of 2007.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

No I am only using the links YOU provided. not being selective at all.

Okay you didn't understand my meaning there? Not sure how that could happen.

No, again - your links contradicts your claim that arctic ice has been thiner in the past. Especially the accurate submarine measurements that show a 50% reduction in thickness.

This explains how you missed my point to a degree. You gets thing blurry in your mind.

Since we have a quote feature here, quote for me the post where I said ice was thinner in the past? When you discover you can't? You might make a note to yourself that you tend to read IN to things you read, and not read the words to get the meaning OUT of them. Huge difference there. Explains your selective acknowledgment though.

Now as to NASA concluding that 4 of the 10 hottest years on record happened in the 1930's, and the hottest year ever recorded was in 1934, there was a warmer arctic then, and thus less ice. But as I stated, there are no satellite maps during that time.

If you choose to conclude that a warmer planet and arctic DON'T imply less ice, then you would have to be a fool to believe that CAGW has anything to do with receding ice today.

Are you able to understand that? It's pretty simple stuff.

If you are putting forth a warmer planet is melting arctic ice, which you are, then a warmer planet would melt MORE ice. Surely you'll be able to follow that simple logic.

 

[iceaura]

Now as to NASA concluding that 4 of the 10 hottest years on record happened in the 1930's, and the hottest year ever recorded was in 1934, there was a warmer arctic then, and thus less ice. But as I stated, there are no satellite maps during that time.

There is plenty of evidence of the extent of the ice cover in the Arctic in the 1930s, from Russian aerial surveys to the accounts of the people who lived there. None of it supports a summer shrinkage comparable to that of 2007, AFAIK. It didn't happen, apparently.

 

[Billy T]

Okay ... quote for me the post where I said ice was thinner in the past?...

ok below IS WHAT YOU SAID in post 120:

... The 'arctic ice is melting! It's CAGW!' is one of the more recent 'scare the hell out of the dummies' approaches of the CAGW extremists. And it's nonsense. ... Yes there was less ice then. {years ago, like 1930s, as the New Zeland group claimed in point 4 (blue text of post 118).} ...

Here you say that it is nonsense to claim the Arctic ice is “melting.” I said that it is Arctic Ocean ice is "thinning" (instead of your precise word “melting”).

What seems non-sense to me is for you to now claim that “melting” does not mean “thinning.” (Unless you are now admitting that the AREA of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice is being reduced to a historic low by global warming or some other cause. - I hardly think you want to concede that point.)

... If you are putting forth a warmer planet is melting arctic ice, which you are, then a warmer planet would melt MORE ice. Surely you'll be able to follow that simple logic.

Yes, I can follow that simple logic and so say that the Arctic Ocean evidence does imply ice cover is both thinning (submarine data) during the last 35 years or so (not sure when Polaris sub went under the North Pole for the first time.) and Shrinking (from the satellite photos of ice cover).

To call this factual evidence "nonsense," as you do in post 120, implies worse than inability to be logical. - It implies inability to understand photographs and accurate ice thickness reports.

I was being cautious so said "thinning," not "melting," as that is what has been directly measured. Perhaps it is not actually "melting" but walruses have been gnawing the bottom off the ice layer from below? :shrug: