• Member Statistics

    16,628
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Javon75
    Newest Member
    Javon75
    Joined
ORH_wxman

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

Recommended Posts

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/alaska-sees-usually-warm-weather-during-fall/

Alaska lawns still green with unusually warm fall weather

Originally published October 22, 2018 at 10:12 pm Updated October 23, 2018 at 8:07 am

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Alaska’s early fall has been unusually warm as a massive high-pressure system camped out around the state.

The warmer weather has allowed lawns to stay green in Anchorage and for farmers to continue harvesting crops in Palmer during a month when the state typically begins to freeze, the Anchorage Daily News reported Sunday.

The lack of typical snow and subfreezing temperatures is unsettling to some. The village of Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island had no ice, weeks into October.

“It’s not freezing up,” said Delbert Pungowiyi, Savoonga tribal president. “Normally, we’d be able to cross the rivers and lakes.”

Climatologist Rick Thoman said most of the state is “running way above normal” this month. Sea-surface temperatures in Chukchi and Bering seas are also “exceptionally warm,” he said.

Utqiagvik was 9 degrees above normal for the first half of the month, and Nome was 13 degrees above normal. Anchorage is setting record high temperatures and has passed the previous record for latest freeze of the year.

The Fairbanks area had less than an inch of snow last week, marking the latest snowfall on record, according to the National Weather Service. Fairbanks usually gets about 10 inches (25 centimeters) of snow in October.

 

UPDATE: Stations with a colder low temperature than Anchorage, Alaska, through October 19th (≤37°F). Since Sept 1, Anchorage has set 14 daily high temp records and 10 warm low temp records. #MakeItStop @AlaskaWx@DaveSnider pic.twitter.com/Mnu6ESYfub
 
A few years ago @Climatologist49 and I created an index to track the Alaska temp departures using 25 locations around the state. Here's the daily average temp dept from normal & the index since June 01. Current warm streak is the greatest since Apr-May 2016. #akwx @wxjerdman pic.twitter.com/yUPl5sQZwO
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 12:37 PM, WarmNose said:

Here's another "good read" from that site:

https://electroverse.net/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-now-at-historic-high-levels/

It's an amusing mix of anecdotal "hey, somebody just had a large/early/late/historic snowstorm" articles, mixed with simple cut-and-paste from select journal articles implying that the earth is cooling, or ice sheets are expanding, etc., etc., and without any real context or analysis.

By the way, whoever runs that site seems to have an idee fixe about the sunspot cycle and its effect on climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 5:49 PM, SeanInWayland said:

Here's another "good read" from that site:

https://electroverse.net/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-now-at-historic-high-levels/

It's an amusing mix of anecdotal "hey, somebody just had a large/early/late/historic snowstorm" articles, mixed with simple cut-and-paste from select journal articles implying that the earth is cooling, or ice sheets are expanding, etc., etc., and without any real context or analysis.

By the way, whoever runs that site seems to have an idee fixe about the sunspot cycle and its effect on climate.

So no different than the random articles posted on here about random/unusual/historic warming in portions of the world? Got it. 

Btw the content in that article you linked is correct. The Antarctic has in fact been cooling and recently did hit record levels of ice cover in recent years. The cause for that is disputed among scientists but it is correct in that regard. 

By the way the “person who runs xx site believes xx so the article isn’t credible” is a logical fallacy. The OP cited Greenland SMB gain which is well documented on plenty of other sites. Sure, it doesn’t mean the earth is cooling or anything else but that specific article and the one you linked are both accurate in regards to Greenland SMB gain and the Antarctic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

So no different than the random articles posted on here about random/unusual/historic warming in portions of the world? Got it. 

Btw the content in that article you linked is correct. The Antarctic has in fact been cooling and recently did hit record levels of ice cover in recent years. The cause for that is disputed among scientists but it is correct in that regard. 

By the way the “person who runs xx site believes xx so the article isn’t credible” is a logical fallacy. The OP cited Greenland SMB gain which is well documented on plenty of other sites. Sure, it doesn’t mean the earth is cooling or anything else but that specific article and the one you linked are both accurate in regards to Greenland SMB gain and the Antarctic. 

No that article is not correct. Its full of inaccurate and misleading statements. The article chart conveniently doesn't include the past 4 years with low sea ice - see chart below. There is no long-term trend in sea ice  around Antarctica. Climate models predict very slow warming near Antarctica due to the time needed to heat up the deep oceans there. So the sea ice behavior there is not surprising. Of bigger concern is the ice sheet disintegration that is starting in Antarctica, due to ocean warming at depth, but you won't read about that at "electroverse".

ice_minmax_s_small.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chubbs said:

No that article is not correct. Its full of inaccurate and misleading statements. The article chart conveniently doesn't include the past 4 years with low sea ice - see chart below. There is no long-term trend in sea ice  around Antarctica. Climate models predict very slow warming near Antarctica due to the time needed to heat up the deep oceans there. So the sea ice behavior there is not surprising. Of bigger concern is the ice sheet disintegration that is starting in Antarctica, due to ocean warming at depth, but you won't read about that at "electroverse".

ice_minmax_s_small.jpg

 

Did you not read the statement cited in the article? See below since you seemed to miss this chart and statement. This goes through 2017 which was 1 year ago and btw the climate models have not been accurate here as mentioned below.

"Comiso Et Al., 2017     The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Has Been Slowly Increasing Contrary To Expected Trends Due To Global Warming And Results From Coupled Climate Models. After A Record High Extent In 2012 The Extent Was Even Higher In 2014 When The Magnitude Exceeded 20 × 106 Km2 For The First Time During The Satellite Era. … [T]He Trend In Sea Ice Cover Is Strongly Influenced By The Trend In Surface Temperature [Cooling].”

image.png.c9cb97a5bdba8cb52e9561f69b51861d.png

 

The JMA asserts that the Antarctic has seen a small net growth since 1979.

"Meanwhile, it is virtually certain that there has been a long-term trend of increase in the annual maximum and annual mean sea ice extents in the Antarctic Ocean since 1979. The former has increased by 0.023[0.010-0.035] x 106 km2 per year and the latter by 0.019[0.008-0.030] x 106 km2 per year. The annual minimum sea ice extent exhibits no discernible trend." http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/seaice_global/series_global_e.html

image.png.9821d299c3773a0169b948be0d5860cf.png

 

NASA themselves in 2015 released a study that indicated there has been positive gains in the ice sheet as well.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Here's one of the papers by Jay Zwally.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268

 

As I mentioned the assertions in that article about the Antarctic gaining ice are agreed upon by some well respected scientists and organizations. There are plenty of other papers out there with similar conclusions as well. I'm still waiting for the polar bears to go extinct like we were promised and the Arctic ocean to be ice free like has been predicted numerous times.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

 

 

 

As I mentioned the assertions in that article about the Antarctic gaining ice are agreed upon by some well respected scientists and organizations. There are plenty of other papers out there with similar conclusions as well. I'm still waiting for the polar bears to go extinct like we were promised and the Arctic ocean to be ice free like has been predicted numerous times.

 

Here is the latest on antarctic sea ice and on ice sheet mass. I don't see much change in antarctic sea ice. More importantly Antarctic ice sheet losses are accelerating and now contribute significantly to sea level rise.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

antseaicensidc.png

antarcticmass.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Here is the latest on antarctic sea ice and on ice sheet mass. I don't see much change in antarctic sea ice. More importantly Antarctic ice sheet losses are accelerating and now contribute significantly to sea level rise.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

antseaicensidc.png

antarcticmass.jpg

Even your graph shows a small long term gain in ice coverage. We aren’t taking about sea level rise here but the ice extent which has gained some since 1979. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Did you not read the statement cited in the article? See below since you seemed to miss this chart and statement. This goes through 2017 which was 1 year ago and btw the climate models have not been accurate here as mentioned below.

"Comiso Et Al., 2017     The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Has Been Slowly Increasing Contrary To Expected Trends Due To Global Warming And Results From Coupled Climate Models. After A Record High Extent In 2012 The Extent Was Even Higher In 2014 When The Magnitude Exceeded 20 × 106 Km2 For The First Time During The Satellite Era. … [T]He Trend In Sea Ice Cover Is Strongly Influenced By The Trend In Surface Temperature [Cooling].”

Note that Comiso does not include data after 2015 which saw anomalously low sea ice extents. And to provide some balance to the quote above this also appears in the article.

"The positive trend, however, should not be regarded as unexpected despite global warming and the strong negative trend in the Arctic ice cover because the distribution of global surface temperature trend is not uniform."

The authors note that the positive trend from 1979 to 2015 could be linked to 1) higher frequency of cool phase ENSO cycles 2) freshening of sea water and/or 3) ozone depletion by CFCs.

It seems as though there are two mains points to the publication. First, the positive trend is real. Second, it's difficult to test the various hypothesis to explain the trend because the CMIP5 suite of models does not adequately predict the trend as-is in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Even your graph shows a small long term gain in ice coverage. We aren’t taking about sea level rise here but the ice extent which has gained some since 1979. 

OK

antseaice.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chubbs said:

OK

antseaice.jpg

 

That chart is not a 1979-2018 long term median trend and is only comparing 2018 to the 1981-2010 median. This was never disputed or discussed; the ice this year is down but in 2014 it was at record levels and the long term trend from multiple charts already posted shows a small positive gain when averaged over the 1979-2017 period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Note that Comiso does not include data after 2015 which saw anomalously low sea ice extents. And to provide some balance to the quote above this also appears in the article.

"The positive trend, however, should not be regarded as unexpected despite global warming and the strong negative trend in the Arctic ice cover because the distribution of global surface temperature trend is not uniform."

The authors note that the positive trend from 1979 to 2015 could be linked to 1) higher frequency of cool phase ENSO cycles 2) freshening of sea water and/or 3) ozone depletion by CFCs.

It seems as though there are two mains points to the publication. First, the positive trend is real. Second, it's difficult to test the various hypothesis to explain the trend because the CMIP5 suite of models does not adequately predict the trend as-is in the first place.

Yep there are various views on why the Antarctic has overall been stable to gaining a small amount in regards to the ice extent. The most popular view I've seen argues for ozone depletion but no one really knows for sure especially since climate models have completely missed these changes. The year 2014 we saw a big peak with the ice extent here and then things have dropped off a bit from there. It remains to be seen if these are just cyclical changes or what exactly is driving them but overall from 1979-2017 the trend has been for a slight increase in ice extent gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

 

That chart is not a 1979-2018 long term median trend and is only comparing 2018 to the 1981-2010 median. This was never disputed or discussed; the ice this year is down but in 2014 it was at record levels and the long term trend from multiple charts already posted shows a small positive gain when averaged over the 1979-2017 period.

You claimed the article was correct. Here is the headline "Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Now at Historic High Levels" Obviously the main objective of the article is to mislead.

nsidc_global_extent_normanomaly.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You claimed the article was correct. Here is the headline "Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Now at Historic High Levels" Obviously the main objective of the article is to mislead.

nsidc_global_extent_normanomaly.png

Again you failed to read the context of the article. It states this at the beginning to provide the CONTEXT for the headline which is key.

"It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years."

At the end of the article it links to an article with a fuller explanation with various studies. https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-now-at-historic-high-levels/

Notice the entire context of this article is set in "recent decades" in contrast to the past 10,000 years. Within this context, assuming one believes the studies that indicate much less ice in the Holocene period, the current ice levels of recent decades are indeed much higher than in the past warmer periods like the Holocene. Yes the headline is a bit of "click bait" but when you read the article and the CONTEXT in which it is set it actually does make sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s amazing to me is how active this thread was as we neared the bottom of sea ice levels in the Arctic but now with the ice extent rapidly rising it is rather quiet. FWIW we are about to pass both 2014 and 2015 for Arctic ice extent and this will likely continue as models actually indicate some normal to BN temps over the arctic circle in the coming days. 

EC300D8A-0FA7-4000-98B6-244C4F23840D.png.6142bd810dd13608370125253186e66b.png

 

850s are forecast to cool well BN across most of the Arctic circle in the coming days.

E76B1485-7B4E-4ADA-B9F2-3AA9C6D4E52C.thumb.png.0685d8ebf5bdad9fe797770708b49dfa.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Again you failed to read the context of the article. It states this at the beginning to provide the CONTEXT for the headline which is key.

"It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years."

At the end of the article it links to an article with a fuller explanation with various studies. https://principia-scientific.org/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-now-at-historic-high-levels/

Notice the entire context of this article is set in "recent decades" in contrast to the past 10,000 years. Within this context, assuming one believes the studies that indicate much less ice in the Holocene period, the current ice levels of recent decades are indeed much higher than in the past warmer periods like the Holocene. Yes the headline is a bit of "click bait" but when you read the article and the CONTEXT in which it is set it actually does make sense.

 

Nice try. Sea ice below is a 5-year mean.

arcticseaicesince500.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Nice try. Sea ice below is a 5-year mean.

arcticseaicesince500.png

What are you even trying to prove with this graph? You do realize your graph doesn’t include the Holocene period we are talking about, right? I’ll make it easy for you. Here’s the graphs cited in the electro article or the one they linked. Their assertion is that in recent decades the ice levels are higher than they were during the Holocene. The research done by the scientists who made this graph would indicate their claim is plausible.

9BF6F12A-F53B-4895-BC11-9522671EDC0A.jpeg.9fce82633f1aba18fa87fb55abd4baee.jpeg

832C0483-005B-4693-882D-9267F3FDAD0D.jpeg.5d40e48bc06d2efed95856eee5378a6b.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

What are you even trying to prove with this graph? You do realize your graph doesn’t include the Holocene period we are talking about, right? I’ll make it easy for you. Here’s the graphs cited in the electro article or the one they linked. Their assertion is that in recent decades the ice levels are higher than they were during the Holocene. The research done by the scientists who made this graph would indicate their claim is plausible

 

Here is your bolded text " there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years. ".  The chart I posted shows that sea ice is lower than any time in the past 2000 years. So your bolded text is clearly incorrect. You are talking about the early Holocene 10,000 years ago when the summer sun was much stronger in the northern hemisphere. Yes, sea ice was also low then when the sun was stronger, but I don't find it comforting given our current rapid downward trend.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume for a moment that this new biomarker proxy evidence for global sea ice extents can be accepted as consensus. That's a big if by the way, but let's go with it for now. What do you think this would suggest in terms of explaining the aggressive declines in the Arctic and the relatively flat trend in the Antarctic in recent decades? Even more importantly what would it say about future trend trajectories? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Here is your bolded text " there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years. ".  The chart I posted shows that sea ice is lower than any time in the past 2000 years. So your bolded text is clearly incorrect. You are talking about the early Holocene 10,000 years ago when the summer sun was much stronger in the northern hemisphere. Yes, sea ice was also low then when the sun was stronger, but I don't find it comforting given our current rapid downward trend.

And the charts I posted that were referenced in the study both showed the past few decades have higher ice extent than any other point in the past 10k years. So which chart is right and which is wrong and why? One study doesn’t prove something as correct or incorrect. The evidence presented by the two papers that the article cited do in fact indicate the ice extent of the past few decades is greater than any period in the past 10k years or so. Whether you choose to accept them or offer up alternative views is up to you but simply put the article you cited does in fact offer a plausible scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

Let's assume for a moment that this new biomarker proxy evidence for global sea ice extents can be accepted as consensus. That's a big if by the way, but let's go with it for now. What do you think this would suggest in terms of explaining the aggressive declines in the Arctic and the relatively flat trend in the Antarctic in recent decades? Even more importantly what would it say about future trend trajectories? 

For me personally I believe everything here on the earth operates in cyclical periods of decades, centuries and millennia in which a combination of various atmospheric cycles, tipping points and other phenomena combine to push the earth either significantly warmer or colder. It is certainly possible that manmade CO2 is enhancing these cycles as well but at the end of the day shifts in the ice could be predominantly explained by some natural cycles. There are various postulations as to what, why and how natural cycles affect ice growth over extended periods that are quite interesting and worthy of further research. The problem is so much attention is given to AGW that many may be missing the real drivers for important aspects of our climate in the process. IMO far too much research is being devoted to AGW as the sole cause and not enough exploration into alternative possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

So no different than the random articles posted on here about random/unusual/historic warming in portions of the world? Got it. 

Btw the content in that article you linked is correct. The Antarctic has in fact been cooling and recently did hit record levels of ice cover in recent years. The cause for that is disputed among scientists but it is correct in that regard. 

By the way the “person who runs xx site believes xx so the article isn’t credible” is a logical fallacy. The OP cited Greenland SMB gain which is well documented on plenty of other sites. Sure, it doesn’t mean the earth is cooling or anything else but that specific article and the one you linked are both accurate in regards to Greenland SMB gain and the Antarctic. 

Yes, no different than random articles posted here containing similar kinds of information about warming/melting/drought events. It's typically used as a bull**** method of indirect argumentation, as is what I cited. I presume you're not saying someone shouldn't criticize that website because there are other silly people out there engaging in similar tactics but with a different axe to grind, right? Bull**** is bull****, and should be labelled as such. I would encourage you also to call out the obvious examples of it that you clearly are thinking of, instead of just starting off with your "whatabout this!" statement, that gives the strong impression that you seem to think I am willing to put up with all other kinds of nonsense and only call this out because of some particular bent I have. That's not a particularly effective way of convincing me, or anyone for that matter.

I typically don't post in here because I'm not nearly as well-versed in the details of climate science the way many here are, but it doesn't take a meteorologist to assess the quality of all meteorologically-related material. Marshaling a set of facts doesn't in itself make for a useful exposition without some analysis or thesis to tie those facts together. I frankly didn't see any at that site, and I found it's constant grandiose references to the sunspot cycle as some uber-important driver of climate conditions on the ground to be off-putting. I would be less off-put if the author simply stated his position, and then offered a cogent argument as to why he thinks it's right.

You seem to be passionate about this topic, so let me offer something I'm hoping we agree on. The Earth's climate is complex, and your recent posts seem to indicate you feel the same way. Discerning the truth abut a complex system is hard enough, but it becomes doubly or triply hard when people spew out poorly-constructed arguments advocating some particular viewpoint and demand that we spend the time to evaluate in detail their claims. Frankly, that's just impossible because it's easy to spin out lots of bull**** (which often contains many facts, a good sprinkling of them is critical to the effective bull****ter) but much harder to paw through it all and explain in detail to someone why it's bull****. That's why I posted my warning about that site after someone posted what I now realize was a clickbait message to entice people to go look at it.   It has all the markers of someone spewing the kind of time-wasting bull**** I described above. If the person who runs that site wants to get people to take the time to consider their arguments, they should present them in a way that says they can be taken seriously, and trusted not to be engaging in bogus argumentation. I don't think that is too much to ask.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

And the charts I posted that were referenced in the study both showed the past few decades have higher ice extent than any other point in the past 10k years. So which chart is right and which is wrong and why? One study doesn’t prove something as correct or incorrect. The evidence presented by the two papers that the article cited do in fact indicate the ice extent of the past few decades is greater than any period in the past 10k years or so. Whether you choose to accept them or offer up alternative views is up to you but simply put the article you cited does in fact offer a plausible scenario. 

No your charts don't show that at all. First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform. Second not one of your charts show sea ice extent across the arctic or antarctic. Instead they are proxy measurements at a single site, which are designed to study historic climate not the present. I checked one of them, the Barents Sea proxy from Koseoglu. The measurements of marker compounds in a sediment core have a resolution of roughly once every 200 years, and the most recent measurement is deemed representative of the 1980-2010 average, so the data can not be used to compare current conditions, with reduced ice, to those in the past. Another paper states that the site experienced seasonal ice throughout the Holocene. Near the winter ice edge early in the early Holocene but with trend to more sustained ice coverage during the Holocene that  has been partially reversed in the past 150 years. During the 1980-2010 period, typically the site was only ice free in August and September, but currently the site and the entire Barents Sea is still ice free. The ice edge in Spring/Winter has retreated close to the site in recent years, so conditions currently may be approaching those of the early Holocene. In any case your bolded statement is false for this one site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SeanInWayland said:

Yes, no different than random articles posted here containing similar kinds of information about warming/melting/drought events. It's typically used as a bull**** method of indirect argumentation, as is what I cited. I presume you're not saying someone shouldn't criticize that website because there are other silly people out there engaging in similar tactics but with a different axe to grind, right? Bull**** is bull****, and should be labelled as such. I would encourage you also to call out the obvious examples of it that you clearly are thinking of, instead of just starting off with your "whatabout this!" statement, that gives the strong impression that you seem to think I am willing to put up with all other kinds of nonsense and only call this out because of some particular bent I have. That's not a particularly effective way of convincing me, or anyone for that matter.

I typically don't post in here because I'm not nearly as well-versed in the details of climate science the way many here are, but it doesn't take a meteorologist to assess the quality of all meteorologically-related material. Marshaling a set of facts doesn't in itself make for a useful exposition without some analysis or thesis to tie those facts together. I frankly didn't see any at that site, and I found it's constant grandiose references to the sunspot cycle as some uber-important driver of climate conditions on the ground to be off-putting. I would be less off-put if the author simply stated his position, and then offered a cogent argument as to why he thinks it's right.

You seem to be passionate about this topic, so let me offer something I'm hoping we agree on. The Earth's climate is complex, and your recent posts seem to indicate you feel the same way. Discerning the truth abut a complex system is hard enough, but it becomes doubly or triply hard when people spew out poorly-constructed arguments advocating some particular viewpoint and demand that we spend the time to evaluate in detail their claims. Frankly, that's just impossible because it's easy to spin out lots of bull**** (which often contains many facts, a good sprinkling of them is critical to the effective bull****ter) but much harder to paw through it all and explain in detail to someone why it's bull****. That's why I posted my warning about that site after someone posted what I now realize was a clickbait message to entice people to go look at it.   It has all the markers of someone spewing the kind of time-wasting bull**** I described above. If the person who runs that site wants to get people to take the time to consider their arguments, they should present them in a way that says they can be taken seriously, and trusted not to be engaging in bogus argumentation. I don't think that is too much to ask.  

Here's the problem I have, the original electroverse article cited was discussing the significant increase in Greenland SMB and normal summer 2018 melt. It then discussed the possible relationship between a solar minimum, blocking and how cold is distributed along with blocking highs/warmth that forces this cold to the south. I really didn't see any issues with that original article cited by warm nose and it was an interesting read. The second article that you linked did have a clickbait title. However upon reading the content of the article, the papers linked do indicate ice levels we see today are likely higher than what occurred during the Holocene. Some scientific studies even posit that the Holocene was ice-free for a time or had minimal levels of ice. Considering how warm scientists think periods of the Holocene were it's not hard to believe that. I don't know who runs the electroverse site and have never heard of it before until this thread but my main point was that the Greenland SMB article had accurate information and there was no need for someone to attack it simply because the website itself has some questionable tactics or info in other places. Hopefully that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chubbs said:

No your charts don't show that at all. First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform. Second not one of your charts show sea ice extent across the arctic or antarctic. Instead they are proxy measurements at a single site, which are designed to study historic climate not the present. I checked one of them, the Barents Sea proxy from Koseoglu. The measurements of marker compounds in a sediment core have a resolution of roughly once every 200 years, and the most recent measurement is deemed representative of the 1980-2010 average, so the data can not be used to compare current conditions, with reduced ice, to those in the past. Another paper states that the site experienced seasonal ice throughout the Holocene. Near the winter ice edge early in the early Holocene but with trend to more sustained ice coverage during the Holocene that  has been partially reversed in the past 150 years. During the 1980-2010 period, typically the site was only ice free in August and September, but currently the site and the entire Barents Sea is still ice free. The ice edge in Spring/Winter has retreated close to the site in recent years, so conditions currently may be approaching those of the early Holocene. In any case your bolded statement is false for this one site.

Let's break this down because you've missed the entirety of the original discussion and point I was making and have shifted to something else.

You said "First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform." Sorry I didn't post this article and never advocated for this website as a reliable source. What I did say is that the content of the article and the assertion they make is quite plausible based on what we know about the Holocene. Yes, the article title was clickbaity and could be a bit misleading but if a person reads what they actually said in the article it's obvious they are comparing the past few DECADES of ice coverage (which would go back even to the high levels of the 70s and 80s) and saying the past few decades have higher levels of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic than there has been for nearly 10,000 years. Here is their exact quote for reference and context, "It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years." Now let's examine the bolded portion and let's assume one accepts biomarker proxies as valid. You specifically point out the one location, the Barents Sea proxy, and say that this data cannot be used to compare current conditions to those in the past. With the understanding that the article was specifically talking about RECENT DECADES than the 1981-2010 years would certainly fit into that context since those are recent decades and the data from that study did indeed indicate ice-free conditions in the Holocene vs recent decades of ice data where the average is much higher. Additionally in the context of their original quote the electroverse artice doesn't limit biomarker proxy data to just one single proxy. There have been plenty of other biomarker proxies done at various sites across the Arctic circle corroborating the unusually low or non-existent ice during part of the Holocene. There are plenty of studies with biomarker proxy data that lend credence to this view. Whether you choose to accept them or offer alternative views from the same period is another discussion; the point is there is evidence that within the context of their statement lends plausibility to what they claimed. 

Your second statement and proceeding argument is also incorrect because you are arguing something that I never claimed. You are assuming that I am saying 2018 sea ice is higher than the Holocene and that it's at record high levels. I'm not. I said within the context of the original statements in the electroverse article, ie the past few DECADES of sea ice, the Arctic and Antarctic have been at levels much higher than the Holocene if one accepts those studies as valid. They were comparing the past 30-40 years of sea ice levels to that of the Holocene, period. Here is their statement again for reference from the article, "It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years." Notice the key in their argument, again, is recent decades. I can't stress that enough because in your argument you are saying 1981-2010 ice levels have no relevance when the article itself was saying that recent decades, which would include 1981-2010, have ice levels that are higher for nearly all of the past 10,000 years. The context and specific wording of this article is important to read and not just the headline and then making assumptions. Plenty of people read the headline of an article and then make assumptions without bothering to read the context and content in which the article is set. I'm not advocating Electroverse as a newsworthy or reliable site.

The purpose of my argument is that the original article posted about the Greenland SMB gain is quite accurate and can be easily verified. The bit of info they included about how blocking changes during solar min and periods of cold is interesting and something that can be debated. The second article that had the clickbait title about the Arctic and Antarctic is, within the context of the article, one that is entirely plausible based on biomarker proxy data and other studies that show significant melting during the Holocene and significantly reduced to ice-free levels that occurred during it. The past few decades, including the 70s and 80s, would have much higher ice levels than this period of the Holocene if one accepts the validity of the biomarker data and other research that has been proposed in various studies. Here's a bit of info from other studies that would lend support to the idea below.

"Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

Studies done in the Swiss Alps found this "The 10Be concentrations measured in eight new samples from proglacial bedrock indicate that this area close to the current glacier terminus was ice-free for at least ~5000 years during the Holocene." https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/360791

Mapping of northern Greenland concluded the following, "The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says  Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway. http://www.ngu.no/sciencepub/eng/pages/Whatsup_20_10_08.html

A study in the Alps found the following, "Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene." http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/0959683606hl964rp

Or this paper which blends a wide variety of study material to reach this conclusion, "The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003185

Again these are just a few examples. There are plenty out there indicating the Holocene ice levels were much lower than what we've seen in the past few decades including the 70s and 80s when ice was higher than it is now. My view is that earth is bound by cyclic changes that occur over time similar to what is thought to have occurred in the past with periods of higher and lower ice levels. Furthermore based on some of the data we have out there, the present day ice levels in the Arctic may have had similarly low levels back in the 1920-1945 period and it then subsequently stabilized and recovered in the following decades before another period of ice loss started around 1980 or so. Since CO2 was much lower in the 1920-1940s, what explains the significant reduction in sea ice in the Arctic (not to mention the brutal heat waves the US saw in the 1930s that still haven't been matched today with far higher CO2)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Let's break this down because you've missed the entirety of the original discussion and point I was making and have shifted to something else.

You said "First of all your article is advocacy, designed to mislead and not inform." Sorry I didn't post this article and never advocated for this website as a reliable source. What I did say is that the content of the article and the assertion they make is quite plausible based on what we know about the Holocene. Yes, the article title was clickbaity and could be a bit misleading but if a person reads what they actually said in the article it's obvious they are comparing the past few DECADES of ice coverage (which would go back even to the high levels of the 70s and 80s) and saying the past few decades have higher levels of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic than there has been for nearly 10,000 years. Here is their exact quote for reference and context, "It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years." Now let's examine the bolded portion and let's assume one accepts biomarker proxies as valid. You specifically point out the one location, the Barents Sea proxy, and say that this data cannot be used to compare current conditions to those in the past. With the understanding that the article was specifically talking about RECENT DECADES than the 1981-2010 years would certainly fit into that context since those are recent decades and the data from that study did indeed indicate ice-free conditions in the Holocene vs recent decades of ice data where the average is much higher. Additionally in the context of their original quote the electroverse artice doesn't limit biomarker proxy data to just one single proxy. There have been plenty of other biomarker proxies done at various sites across the Arctic circle corroborating the unusually low or non-existent ice during part of the Holocene. There are plenty of studies with biomarker proxy data that lend credence to this view. Whether you choose to accept them or offer alternative views from the same period is another discussion; the point is there is evidence that within the context of their statement lends plausibility to what they claimed. 

Your second statement and proceeding argument is also incorrect because you are arguing something that I never claimed. You are assuming that I am saying 2018 sea ice is higher than the Holocene and that it's at record high levels. I'm not. I said within the context of the original statements in the electroverse article, ie the past few DECADES of sea ice, the Arctic and Antarctic have been at levels much higher than the Holocene if one accepts those studies as valid. They were comparing the past 30-40 years of sea ice levels to that of the Holocene, period. Here is their statement again for reference from the article, "It is often claimed that modern day sea ice changes are unprecedented, alarming, and well outside the range of natural variability. Yet scientists are increasingly finding that biomarker proxies used to reconstruct both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice conditions since the Early Holocene reveal that today’s sea ice changes are not only not unusual, there is more extensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice during recent decades than there has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years." Notice the key in their argument, again, is recent decades. I can't stress that enough because in your argument you are saying 1981-2010 ice levels have no relevance when the article itself was saying that recent decades, which would include 1981-2010, have ice levels that are higher for nearly all of the past 10,000 years. The context and specific wording of this article is important to read and not just the headline and then making assumptions. Plenty of people read the headline of an article and then make assumptions without bothering to read the context and content in which the article is set. I'm not advocating Electroverse as a newsworthy or reliable site.

The purpose of my argument is that the original article posted about the Greenland SMB gain is quite accurate and can be easily verified. The bit of info they included about how blocking changes during solar min and periods of cold is interesting and something that can be debated. The second article that had the clickbait title about the Arctic and Antarctic is, within the context of the article, one that is entirely plausible based on biomarker proxy data and other studies that show significant melting during the Holocene and significantly reduced to ice-free levels that occurred during it. The past few decades, including the 70s and 80s, would have much higher ice levels than this period of the Holocene if one accepts the validity of the biomarker data and other research that has been proposed in various studies. Here's a bit of info from other studies that would lend support to the idea below.

"Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y

Studies done in the Swiss Alps found this "The 10Be concentrations measured in eight new samples from proglacial bedrock indicate that this area close to the current glacier terminus was ice-free for at least ~5000 years during the Holocene." https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/360791

Mapping of northern Greenland concluded the following, "The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says  Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway. http://www.ngu.no/sciencepub/eng/pages/Whatsup_20_10_08.html

A study in the Alps found the following, "Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene." http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/0959683606hl964rp

Or this paper which blends a wide variety of study material to reach this conclusion, "The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003185

Again these are just a few examples. There are plenty out there indicating the Holocene ice levels were much lower than what we've seen in the past few decades including the 70s and 80s when ice was higher than it is now. My view is that earth is bound by cyclic changes that occur over time similar to what is thought to have occurred in the past with periods of higher and lower ice levels. Furthermore based on some of the data we have out there, the present day ice levels in the Arctic may have had similarly low levels back in the 1920-1945 period and it then subsequently stabilized and recovered in the following decades before another period of ice loss started around 1980 or so. Since CO2 was much lower in the 1920-1940s, what explains the significant reduction in sea ice in the Arctic (not to mention the brutal heat waves the US saw in the 1930s that still haven't been matched today with far higher CO2)?

 

yawn.....too much time spent on denier websites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chubbs said:

yawn.....too much time spent on denier websites

Typical response of someone who has lost the debate and has nothing further to add... sad. It's obvious you aren't searching to answer the difficult questions that are raised by scientific research that doesn't agree with the AGW view or that raises important questions worthy of discussion. That's the problem with this thread and a lot who post here. They are all in on the AGW train and any shred of data they can find that seems to corroborate their claims they post but any person who questions it or would provide scientific research indicating otherwise is immediately labeled a denier, singled out and then weak claims/excuses are given when those people no longer can provide a well reasoned, intellectual and compelling argument for why they believe what they do. If you disagree with the research I posted above I challenge you to post some scientific studies that conclude otherwise and why you think they are right. I can appreciate that much more than the cop out response you gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.