North pole to melt this year?

This is good for biodiversity, though...man won't kill off malaria via AGW or other means...

Biodiversity is good, right?
wink.gif
pirate.gif
 
www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. "
 
funny you should mention it Paso....it is indeed thicker...in fact, it is substantially thicker than 3 years ago and looks to be comparable to 2006 in thickness. i just read a good blog posting on just that question by a guy using PIPS.....

you can read it here:

hide the decline ice report

it's funny....when ice extent was up, you guys talked about volume and said extent didn't mean anything (and i agreed but said that i didn't know of great sites to explore thickness)....suddenly, now that the ice extent is low, you guys are all excited to report it and your protestations from the past have gone silent. why is that?

at any rate....we currently have much more thickness than we have had for about 5 to 6 years. i think an interesting check will be the September extent minimum though because that does tell us something about how much ice we have.
 
interesting time of year in arctic ice. on the one hand, the sea-ice extent is about the middle of the pack for this time of year....but never really got to an impressive level. on the other hand, PIPS is showing a much thicker sea-ice than just a couple of years ago......so this may bode well for sea ice extent come the minimum in September. but that is so richly dependent upon the Arctic Oscillation and summer cloud cover....i will be intrigued to see and will of course keep us all posted....at least those who read this thread!
 
just read the following on Climate Realists...and think it is worth posting here because it is easily testable and falsifiable. we will know within 9 months about the veracity of the claims made herein. however, i want to say even here in April of 2011....that if this year does show a massive dip in global temperatures when compared with the past 20 years, i will still think this prediction fairly prescient even if the specific year of 1956 isn't actually eclipsed:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
of the 7 years on the record of IJIS....2011 is still below the middle of the 9 with the following years having had more ice at this point:

1. 2003
2. 2010
3. 2008
4. 2009
5. 2004

and these having had less ice at this point in the year:

1. 2005
2. 2007
3. 2006


interestingly enough...it is those that had more ice extent which actually ended up with less ice (in the cases of 2008, 2009, and 2010 at least) than those with less ice (in the cases of 2005 and 2006). but no doubt that has to do with ice thickness and as i have recently reported, ice thickness has improved considerably according to PIPS.
 
oh...and as a comparison....look at today's ice thickness and then change the date to 2005 and you will see that ice was clearly thicker in 2005....yet one year later in 2006, the ice looks about the same as today's ice.
 
i can't imagine what they are referring to talking about rising sea levels....we have seen just recently that the seas aren't really rising any faster than in the past. furthermore, they may have actually decreased in their rate of rise in the past. but i do expect with the negative PDO we will see Arctic ice begin to recover while the Antarctic will begin to lose ice.
 
well of course there has been recovery....for the last 3 years we have seen 2 years of recovery. are they statistically significant yet over standard means of measuring signficance? no.... but contrary to what this very fine thread that you started suggested, we are in no danger of seeing the Arctic melt completely by next summer. in fact, we have far more ice now than we did at that time......which is probably disappointing to those of you one here who thrive on environmental doom and gloom.
 
my response very much responded to the logic of their answer hornpharmd.....let me ask you a simple question. if the arctic ice does indeed fully recover back to "average" in the next 20 years.....when will we say the recovery began?

of course i understand it is too soon to say with any authority or certainty that the recovery can be said to have begun conclusively. but it's not like it is going to go from significantly down to fully average within one year. so...i am saying that other indicators (the quiet sun, the negative PDO, and the soon to come negative NAO for instance) point to a coming recovery.
 
GT...you should check out this new study about sea-level rise. seems to suggest that the rate of rise has not changed in a Century and may have even slightly decreased in the past 80 years.

sea level rise paper by the Journal of Coastal Research

GT..i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. you are for peer-reviewed papers yet you linked me to a NASA picture with explanation from 5 years ago while I am linking you to the latest research done on the subject. I would think that even you would agree that my link trumps yours in rather dramatic fashion right?
 
wow GT...are you serious? did you read what i wrote? did you read the link i posted to? i didn't even know about the Washington times piece you posted to and i never once suggested that oceans had stopped rising. in fact, my language was very precise and a scientist like yourself who is teaching our youth ought to have observed how precise my language was. i spoke very clearly about the "rate of sea-level rise" not merely "sea level rise."

my link and my brief commentary on the subject were not un-Christian in the slightest and your attempt to once again link this to my faith reveals again your strong prejudice against Christians and your anti-religious bias.

read my post and try to find any fault with it. i posted a link to the actual paper, i mentioned that it showed that the oceans were not rising any more quickly and that the "rate of rise" has possibly even decreased over the past 80 years. i don't know what more you need to be able to understand GT, but let me know and i will try to add it for your benefit next time.
 
You, and the Washington Times, mischaracterized the paper you linked to. There is nothing in that paper that should give solace to a science denier.
 
GT...weak reply for someone who completely misunderstood and misrepresented my point.

i only spoke of the rate of change...nothing more. and the rate has stayed the same or even slowed down. that is different than we have been told...even by you, although i grant that there were reasons to think otherwise until now.

I grant that the Washington times misrepresented the paper, but then i didn't link to their editorial (or even know about it for that matter). you took my legitimate link to a peer reviewed paper and then linked to a editorial that plainly misrepresented the facts and tried to implicate me in their fallacy. how is that a legitimate claim against me?


if i mischaracterized the paper, tell me how. if you have a claim against me, let's see if you can make it or if it was just your anti-religious bigotry flaring up once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top