Article

2009-04-03 Science & Technology

Models Say Sea Ice Shrinking Despite Growing

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-04-03 08:54|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#1 "Last year's summer minimum was 1.8 million square miles in September, second lowest only to 2007 which had a minimum of 1.65 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center"

I believe that indicates Ice Coverage Grew by 15 million square miles from 2007 to 2008....

Posted by TomAnon 2009-04-03 11:08|| 2009-04-03 11:08|| Front Page Top

#2 oops.. make that 150k square miles

Posted by TomAnon 2009-04-03 11:09|| 2009-04-03 11:09|| Front Page Top

#3 It's easy to make new annual records when you only have 30 years of data.

making it the fifth lowest on record = normal within 1 standard deviation

Posted by ed 2009-04-03 11:24|| 2009-04-03 11:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Even the models are afraid they will lose funding as the Global Warming hoax is exposed!!!

Posted by DarthVader 2009-04-03 11:45|| 2009-04-03 11:45|| Front Page Top

#5 Instead of "Models(That say whatevr the modler wants) how about just getting pictures from the Space Station, or from Hubble that show the truth?

We DO have Space capability, USE IT.

Posted by Shomp Hatfield RJ 2009-04-03 11:48|| 2009-04-03 11:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Won't need to enlarge or replace the Panama Canal then, will we? And we'd be able to tanker north slope hydrocarbons instead of building more pipelines. That ice is floating so melting it won't raise sea level either. Could make a difference in North Atlantic sea currents though - no idea if for the better or worse.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2009-04-03 11:57|| 2009-04-03 11:57|| Front Page Top

#7 "with six complex computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reach their conclusions"

I suspect the models used (Hanson, et al) should flag the conclusions as invalid.

Posted by tipover 2009-04-03 12:52|| 2009-04-03 12:52|| Front Page Top

#8 I hate to be snarky (not really, I love being snarky), but when I saw the title of the article, I was thinking it was another announcement by people living in a fantasy world doing unrealistic work making pronouncements because their handlers keep telling them how smart they are. Ya' know, Hollywood types. Hmm! Maybe I'm not too far off the mark.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-04-03 13:00|| 2009-04-03 13:00|| Front Page Top

#9 These models are better...

Posted by Mullah Richard 2009-04-03 13:33|| 2009-04-03 13:33|| Front Page Top

#10 Uh, uh, ... "B.C. COMICS' TALKING CLAMHEAD > "FROZEN ICE ARE POLITICALLY CORRECT/CLINTONIAN"???

Gut Nuthin - D *** NG IT, THATS TWICE THIS AM!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-04-03 21:56|| 2009-04-03 21:56|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm putting together an email, a letter, and a small check to send to Mountain States Legal Foundation, with a copy to a couple of other groups (Judicial Watch, etc.) asking them to prepare to sue the President, the Congress, the EPA, Al Gore, and a dozen other groups (including the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) for fraud in "pursuing legislation to reduce the impact of anthropogenic climate change". A computer model is NOT a fact. There is no computer model sufficiently complex enough to accurately depict current weather, much less what it will be 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. There has been sufficient new information made available that ties past and current trends to solar influence (sunspots, geomagnetic changes, solar wind, irradiance, and several other factors), ocean currents (La Nina/El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multiyear Oscillation), galactic cosmic rays/cloud cover, and other data, with a much stronger correlation than the rise in the level of non-H2O greenhouse gasses.

There is no way in He$$ that roughly 2% (the percentage of atmospheric CO2 attributed to human activity) of 4% (the percentage of CO2 in greenhouse gasses) can control 99% of the changes in climate (2% of 4% is 0.0008 - eight ten-thousandths). The variation in water vapor (between 93% and 96% of all greenhouse gasses) is greater than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A drop of 0.1% in solar irradiation (which can happen due to a single coronal mass ejection) can result in a drop in world temperatures of up to 0.5degrees centigrade.

Our government is filled with people who have forgotten too much of how the world works, and who think the rest of us are that stupid, also. We need to prove them different. Suing the socks off of them for a FELONY (fraud) would do the trick. That fraud is going to cost all of us tens of thousands of dollars a year if it isn't challenged.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2009-04-03 22:39|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2009-04-03 22:39|| Front Page Top

23:15 Broadhead6
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:01 Pappy
22:40 Cynicism Inc
22:39 Old Patriot
22:30 Procopius2k
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:18 Barbara Skolaut
22:17 Barbara Skolaut
22:12 Frank G
22:11 Frank G
21:56 SteveS
21:56 JosephMendiola
21:52 trailing wife in Buffalo
21:52 JosephMendiola
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:44 Omeatch the Anonymous1196
21:29 trailing wife in Buffalo
21:26 Broadhead6
21:23 Xenophon
21:22 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:16 newc