Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

Originally Posted by Clippo:
Still peddling the false assumption that, year on year that if the ice melt isn’t greater than the previous year, then AGW doesn’t hold up.

So if you're effectively saying that "less ice melt this year than last year doesn't disprove AGW", then what is your position in relation to ice melting ?

i.e. what evidence can there be for (or against) AGW with regard to ice melting to reach a conclusion ?

Are you saying that if the ice was melting that you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops about the huge danger we all face ?

[Rep]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news though, but the northern pole might not be here soon. It's said that " It has melted drastically" the only good thing we can increase trade if that is the case. I am beginning to see a trend between melting. I think personally from my own view is that certain parts of the world's ice shelfs are melting as others are off seeting thier minute losses. There is always compensation. One thing even worse immediately is the rising use of fertilizers that are causing deadzones that kill fish and other marine wildlife by suffercating them. None too apparently than in the Gulf Coast area here in America. Any thoughts?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Darth Bane:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news though, but the northern pole might not be here soon. It's said that " It has melted drastically" the only good thing we can increase trade if that is the case. I am beginning to see a trend between melting. I think personally from my own view is that certain parts of the world's ice shelfs are melting as others are off seeting thier minute losses. There is always compensation. One thing even worse immediately is the rising use of fertilizers that are causing deadzones that kill fish and other marine wildlife by suffercating them. None too apparently than in the Gulf Coast area here in America. Any thoughts?

Absolutely agree about pollution. The oceans have absorbed much of this because for so long they have been treated as some sort of dumping ground. But not only sea water suffers, ground water suffers too as these chemicals seep down into water tables.

Another cause of reduced fish populations is over fishing caused directly by human overpopulation. A hundred million sharks die a year caught up nets used for other fish and those used for oriental shark fin dishes are deprived of their fins and thrown into the sea to rot. Even sturgeon used solely for caviar are discarded in this manner and a source of protein from their flesh is simply thrown away.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
So if you're effectively saying that "less ice melt this year than last year doesn't disprove AGW", then what is your position in relation to ice melting ?

i.e. what evidence can there be for (or against) AGW with regard to ice melting to reach a conclusion ?

Are you saying that if the ice was melting that you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops about the huge danger we all face ?

Trying to debug Clippo's logic is a monumental task. You are a brave man for attempting such a feat.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Seasider:
Brilliant

:-)

I know, I never fail to satify do I? :-)

[Rep]

YCHTT,
You don’t appear to understand the difference between ‘Trends’ and ‘Natural variability in any system.
I’ll try to spell it out again :-

In the ‘ice-melt system’, every summer the polar ice-caps melt a bit then in the following winter, they re-freeze.

Many factors go into this melting & re-freezing process. For example, the main ones are atmospheric temperature and ocean temperatures. However, weather & ocean circulations are ‘naturally variable’ so that in year A, say when the atmosphere & oceans deliver fractionally less heat to the poles, melting will be less. However, in year B the atmos. & oceans might deliver much more heat and therefore melting will be excessive.
So the ‘natural cycle’ will continue over a period of decades, and using universally accepted mathematical techniques and in the absence of any ‘non-natural’ factors, it is possible to draw an average, LEVEL line through the successive see-saw data.

In the present state of the polar ice system, if one tried to draw an average line through the observed data for the last 2-3 decades, (for which there have been reasonably reliable measurements of how the ice has changed), you wouldn’t get a LEVEL straight line, but one SLOPING UPWARDS. This is known as a TREND.

So, what’s the accepted cause of this trend ?

Obviously, & accepted by the majority, it is the extra heat put into the atmos. & ocean systems - again by common consent to be due CO2 forcings.

Next year, the ice may or may not be less than this year. It may even be less than 2007 or it may be somewhere in between 2007-2008. But in all probability, because of the extra heat put into the system by AGW, successive ice-melts will, on average get greater & greater until the Arctic, at least in 10-20 years will be ice-free in summer.

If you call that ‘shouting’ from the roof tops’, so be it – but it is nowhere near as shrill as the pathetic squeals of the contrarians.

[Rep]

PS to my previous post :-
If my answer wasn't technical enough for you, you might like to vist this site:-

SOTC: Sea Ice

(Got some good graphs too!) :-)

[Rep]

Is it true that AGW supporters are rushing northwards as we speak, clutching big containers of salt?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon:
What a beautiful avatar pic, Seasider! Sorry to butt in on Arctic Ice but your sunset over the sea is glorious. Makes me think of Cape Town where you get a "golden highway" to the sun every summer evening over a sea glittering as though with burnished diamonds.

Does anyone have the feeling I have that after a global heat wave of perhaps short duration in climatological terms there will be the mother of all ice ages again?

Not you as well, what is it with the silly little lists? :-)

[Rep]