The religion of Man Made Global Warming saga continues...

[amanuensis63]

The rebound in sea ice over the past few years is clearly visible.

Do you know the difference between multi-year ice and single year ice? (Hint: it's in the name).

 

[rambot]

Your data conveniently stops at the minimum ice extent seen in 2011. The OP concerns itself with the rebound in ice over the subsequent four years.

The OP is about current data, Amanuensis. 2011 was a minimum. 2015 is not. It's not complicated.

Here's the referenced chart of NASA data from the OP.

The rebound in sea ice over the past few years is clearly visible.

I'm curious if you actually know what sea ice is, in reference to your argument here.

 

[wing2000]

Speaking of looking up, your quote doesn't seem to appear within this thread. What is the relevance?

review #145

 

[rambot]

Side bar of, I'm certain little to no interest to deniers:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/news/articles/6621
And, because I know about the fear of ANYTHING close to actual science, here is a newspaper article just to make you feel a bit more comfortable:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...-but-don-t-jump-to-global-cooling-conclusions

 

[NightHawkeye]

Do you know the difference between multi-year ice and single year ice? (Hint: it's in the name).

I'm curious if you actually know what sea ice is, in reference to your argument here.

Noting that there is no refutation of the NASA data from the OP ...

 

[AirPo]

Noting that there is no refutation of the NASA data from the OP ...

Noting someone actually quoted the refutation of the NASA data from the OP.

 

[amanuensis63]

Noting that there is no refutation of the NASA data from the OP ...

We all know that "science" is a bit too hard for some folks on here but I'll still attempt.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201504

Now, you will want to talk about the SOUTH POLE too, I bet. Well the interesting thing there is (and this is where it becomes more advanced than most "skeptics" can handle);

the extent of sea ice in the Southern Ocean is different and it's because of another effect we are likely responsible for in the atmosphere:

(Source: ibid)

Now note that it appears to be going UP! The extent of sea ice in the Southern Ocean appears to be affected by changes in air currents over Antarctica pushing the ice out further. The reason air currents are changing is in part due to the OZONE HOLE which we are largely responsible for which may be causing stratospheric cooling which increases cyclonic winds. (REFERENCE 1
REFERENCE 2)

There's also impact on the circulation in the Southern Ocean leading to stratification and mixing dynamics that are different now, caused in no small part by increases in air temperature. This leads to less melting of sea ice (REFERENCE)

NOW YOU MISERABLE TROLL, YOU JUST KEEP TELLING PEOPLE I DON'T BOTHER TO ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL TOPIC.

I DARE YOU, TROLL.

THERE'S MORE SCIENCE IN THIS ONE POST OF MINE THAN YOU HAVE MANAGED TO FIND IN SEVERAL PAGES OF POSTS.

TROLL.

 

[NightHawkeye]

We all know that "science" is a bit too hard for some folks ...

Getting back to the NASA data from the OP ... the recovery of arctic sea ice. That recovery is fairly well documented by the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory/Polar Science Center modeling, PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System). The substantial recovery from the low of 2011 is obvious.

 

[AirPo]

Getting back to the NASA data from the OP ... the recovery of arctic sea ice. That recovery is fairly well documented by the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory/Polar Science Center modeling, PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System). The substantial recovery from the low of 2011 is obvious.

That chart shows exactly the opposite of what the post seems to be implying.


Way to rebut the OP!

 

[NightHawkeye]

That chart shows exactly the opposite of what the post seems to be implying.

Way to rebut the OP!

The claim was about sea ice recovery from the low of 2011. The chart shows that recovery quite clearly.

 

[AirPo]

The claim was about sea ice recovery from the low of 2011. The chart shows that recovery quite clearly.

No it doesn't.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does ...

It doesn't show recovery to the "average" since 1979 but it shows substantial recovery from 2011 levels.

 

[amanuensis63]

Getting back to the NASA data from the OP ... the recovery of arctic sea ice.

Thanks for IGNORING ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T COMPORT TO YOUR BIAS. That makes it easier for you to later on tell me how I never address anything technically.

That recovery is fairly well documented by the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory/Polar Science Center modeling, PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System). The substantial recovery from the low of 2011 is obvious.

The total ice volume in your graph appears to be 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2014 average.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thanks for IGNORING ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T COMPORT TO YOUR BIAS. That makes it easier for you to later on tell me how I never address anything technically.

Noting again that the OP is not being refuted.

The total ice volume in your graph appears to be 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2014 average.

2011 data was at 2 standard deviations. Recovery was to slightly more than 1 standard deviation ... as explained here: Polar Science Center | University of Washington

Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations​

The darkly shaded area represents 1 standard deviation, the lightly shaded area represents 2 standard deviations.

 

[AirPo]

Yes, it does ...

It doesn't show recovery to the "average" since 1979 but it shows substantial recovery from 2011 levels.

That's a very liberal definition of the word "substantial."

 

[NightHawkeye]

That's a very liberal definition of the word "substantial."

It's a science thing. One standard deviation is generally regarded as substantial.

 

[AirPo]

It's a science thing. One standard deviation is generally regarded as substantial.

Standard deviation is not a science thing, it's a math thing.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Standard deviation is not a science thing, it's a math thing.

Applied to science, it's very much a science thing.

 

[AirPo]

Applied to science, it's very much a science thing.

No, it's a math thing. Math is a tool used by science. Being applied to science does not make it science.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, it's a math thing. Math is a tool used by science. Being applied to science does not make it science.

LOL ... it's really a statistics thing.