• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Polar Ice Caps Inceased Size in past 20 years!


Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
The following is a point I made on the thread The Insidious Change.ie and it warrants it's own title to make the point of how we are continually being lied to.
Practically 100% of you probably think the Ice caps decreased in size in recent years when in fact the opposite was the case:

From 1986 to 2006 the polar ICE CAPS ACTUALLY INCREASED in size:

ARTIC ICE Feb 1986 TOTAL AREA 12.5million Sq Km, Feb 2006 12.3million Sq Km
ANTARTIC Aug 1986 TOTAL AREA 13.4million Sq Km Aug 2006 14.5 million Sq km


Source for above figures: US National Snow and Ice Data Centre

THAT MAKES IT A NET INCREASE OF 900,000 Sq kilometers of polar ice.

So over this 20 year time slot one Ice Cap decreased in size by 1.6% while the other ice cap increased in size by 8.2%.

See following Sea Ice Concentration data:
Artic





Antartic






And for Feb 2008, Sea Ice Concentration has exceeded 1986 levels.
 
Last edited:


NotDevsSon

Active member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
174
So your new theory is that it was the polar ice caps that were responsible for 9/11?

Or have you finally giving up dreaming up conspiracy theories about 9/11 and posting them here? :cool:
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
NotDevsSon said:
So your new theory is that it was the polar ice caps that were responsible for 9/11?

Or have you finally giving up dreaming up conspiracy theories about 9/11 and posting them here? :cool:
When my detractors on the subject of Global Warming find themselves in a bit of a corner they generally use some other angle to try to discredit what I'm saying. If you feel out of your depth NotDev, it's no disgrace. May I suggest you stick to History you are the best on this site by far.

On 9/11, I've covered that. I know it's a fraud and so do most scientists who can get out a calculator. But it's hard to cover up millions of years of climate history where we had CO2 up 10 times what it is today and it didn't drive the temperature of the planet. No amount of media spin and indoctrination can subvert science especially when the planet is showing signs of global cooling.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
Two things. Firstly, do you now withdraw the article you posted as fact on the "Insidious Change.ie" thread?

Secondly, why do you equate area with size? Are there any other dimensions that ice has?
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
Destiny's Soldier said:
...especially when the planet is showing signs of global cooling.
You've made that claim before, and it turned out that you were using US figures instead of global figures. Go on, provide your source.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
Pidge said:
Destiny's Soldier said:
...especially when the planet is showing signs of global cooling.
You've made that claim before, and it turned out that you were using US figures instead of global figures. Go on, provide your source.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.


http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%2B ... 0866.htm?a
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
C&AG said:
Pidge said:
Secondly, why do you equate area with size? Are there any other dimensions that ice has?
If the ice was disintegrating then it would look more spread out. Do you have figures for ice mass, Destinys Soldier?
The mass in this case is the ratio of ice to sea water and that is displayed on the right of the image in % terms.
We are comparing like with like in the years '86 to '06. It's hard scientific fact which cannot be dismissed.

Size and Area is just a way of saying the same thing. Area is 2D, Size is 3D. No big deal.
 

C&AG

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
37
Website
machinenation.forumakers.com
Do you know how those %figures were obtained though - from satellite imaging, through weighing the ice on the ground, how? I'm concerned that if it was satellite imaging then a cold pound of butter covers one area but a melting half pound seen from the ceiling would cover a much larger area.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
C&AG said:
Do you know how those %figures were obtained though - from satellite imaging, through weighing the ice on the ground, how? I'm concerned that if it was satellite imaging then a cold pound of butter covers one area but a melting half pound seen from the ceiling would cover a much larger area.
All very good. See for yourselves on the weblink below which showns the trend of the Artic Vs the Antartic. If there is anyone here who knows John Gormley maybe you might point it out to him. And also to madam at the Irish Times.
Pretty difficult to refute.


http://www.nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist. ... s=no_panel
 

C&AG

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
37
Website
machinenation.forumakers.com
Destiny's Soldier said:
I just had a look there to see if their methods of data collection were evident on the site but I haven't seen any yet. It looks like good news so let's be sure. I found some pictures of Baffin Bay showing progressively less and less ice since 2002



Project Summary

Passive microwave imagery indicates a decreasing trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. The past four summers, 2002-2005, have exhibited particularly reduced extent and have reinforced the downward trend. Even the winter periods have now shown decreasing trends. At the local level, Arctic residents are noticing changes in sea ice as well. In particular, indigenous elders and hunters report changes such as earlier breakup, later freeze-up, and thinner ice. The changing conditions have profound implications for Arctic-wide climate, but there is also regional variability in the extent trends. These can have important ramifications for wildlife and indigenous communities in the affected regions. Here we bring together observations from remote sensing with observations and knowledge of Inuit who live in the Baffin Bay region. Weaving the complimentary perspectives of science and Inuit knowledge, we investigate the processes driving changes in Baffin Bay sea ice extent and discuss the present and potential effects of changing sea ice on local activities.


Is it just a local effect there?
http://www.nsidc.org/research/projects/ ... n_Bay.html
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I'm not sure I fully trust American sources on global warming, given it remains one of the few Western countries where a substantial body of scientists (sometimes in the pay of the oil industry) disagree with global warming (or say they do).
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Destiny's Soldier said:
[quote="C&AG":16onmpb0]
Pidge said:
Secondly, why do you equate area with size? Are there any other dimensions that ice has?
If the ice was disintegrating then it would look more spread out. Do you have figures for ice mass, Destinys Soldier?
The mass in this case is the ratio of ice to sea water and that is displayed on the right of the image in % terms.
We are comparing like with like in the years '86 to '06. It's hard scientific fact which cannot be dismissed.

Size and Area is just a way of saying the same thing. Area is 2D, Size is 3D. No big deal.[/quote:16onmpb0]

So the Atlantic would be just the same "size" if it was only 5 inches deep? Interesting.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
It's incredible how DS appears to be making an argument, but that they're posting rubbish.

1) DS claims that the "size" of the polar ice caps is larger, and that this is evidence that they aren't melting. It turns out that what they mean by "size" is not actually "size", but a top-down view of the total area. Ice is, unfortunately for DS, three dimensional. When it melts - it's not only the width and length which melts - it's the height too. Volume is what matters, not area.

If you saw a pie which was three centimetres wide, you might say that it was small. If the height of that pie was a kilometre, you'd probably would rephrase.

2) DS claims that a temperature decrease over one year is evidence of global cooling. Yet if DS were to choose a longer period (remember, we're talking about climate, not weather), you'd see a drop.
 

carguy

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
16
Pidge, if you understood the scientific evidence that has been gathered by satellites etc you would understand that there is a growing increase in the ice sheet in the Antartic. Your analogy in this case is simply wrong. Funny how when the evidence stacks up against the man made global warming non-science the Greenies resort to insults

The German Antartic survey that has investigated deep water has shown cooling, much to the chagrin and bias of the lead scientist who expected to find warming in evidence of “Global warming”. But being scientific he accpts the evidence.
Look guys the oceans are the major heat sink in the Earth's climate, simply because the heat capacity of water is so many times greater than that of air. It is the slow heating and cooling of the ocean that is responsible for spring generally being cooler than autumn. There is no scientific peer reviewed evidence of the oceans warming up at all, either in the deep ocean (as in this study http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_release ... das_globa/)

Or in the NOAA Argo data (which takes worldwide measurements of the temperature at shallow depths).

This is a big problem for the Green supporters of the climate models that the global warming theory is based on i.e. the surface is (probably) getting warmer, but the oceans aren't. If man made Global warming was real. That shouldn't be possible!

Scientific evidence like the above destroys the computer modelling that predicts the effects of so called global warming as the models have not and do not factor in the evidence rendering their results useless.

And worse, as can be seen by the Creationist style belief system of the Global warming fundementalists , if real empirical evidence gets in the way of the much-vaunted "models", like the absence of warming in the lower atmosphere, the Green fundamentalists resort to mud-slinging and denigration of character. As with most Green ideas ,Climate alarmism has much more in common with religion than science.

I just wish the Green fundementalist alarmists would stop pointing out examples of local warming as evidence that the sky is falling. Rational discussion would be refreshing.

Unfortunately it is very hard to find it on this site.
 

expat girl

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
141
FutureTaoiseach said:
I'm not sure I fully trust American sources on global warming, given it remains one of the few Western countries where a substantial body of scientists (sometimes in the pay of the oil industry) disagree with global warming (or say they do).
hear hear

But listen lads, this whole global warming thing is somewhat passe.... the amount of fossil fuel on this planet is finite and it is becoming increasingly obvious that we can't continue to burn it at the current rate, not because of worries about global warming, but because IT ACTUALLY ISNT THERE.

We don't have enough easily extractable oil on the planet to fry ourselves, whether or not global warming exists or not.

My own feeling is that governments know this and that warming is a convenient way to persuade people to cut consumption voluntarily rather than causing complete panic as the shortages increasingly bite

This is not to say that I don't believe that if there WAS limitless fuel, burning it wouldn't do some damage... I'd generally believe in global warming. BUT IT ISNT THE BIG ISSUE HERE!!!

How to wean our economies off fossil fuel before their rising prices and eventual shortages cripple our societies IS the BIG ISSUE
 

cHeal

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
303
Why does this piece of data trump all the data released in the last 5 years which points to the complete opposite?
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
Pidge said:
It's incredible how DS appears to be making an argument, but that they're posting rubbish.

1) DS claims that the "size" of the polar ice caps is larger, and that this is evidence that they aren't melting. It turns out that what they mean by "size" is not actually "size", but a top-down view of the total area. Ice is, unfortunately for DS, three dimensional. When it melts - it's not only the width and length which melts - it's the height too. Volume is what matters, not area.

If you saw a pie which was three centimetres wide, you might say that it was small. If the height of that pie was a kilometre, you'd probably would rephrase.

2) DS claims that a temperature decrease over one year is evidence of global cooling. Yet if DS were to choose a longer period (remember, we're talking about climate, not weather), you'd see a drop.
We know Ice is 3D. You can look at it any perspective you want, Over the 20th century, when the Artic is reducing in size/area, the Antartic increases in size/area
and vice versa.
This is explained and predicted by cloud and cosmic ray influence of climate rather than an increase in CO2 of 0.004% by volume. And you can try to pick holes in my argument all you want, but the game is up for CO2.

So when you hear Bertie (my partner in crime) talk about Lisbon as being about dealing with issues like Climate Change, you'd wonder is it really about that or is it about BIG EU controlling and micromanaging businesses, economics, people, who gets what etc etc.

Because people exhale 4.2% CO2 into the air, there are people writing to newspapers saying the world is overpopulated and China's 1 child policy is correct. One such letter appeared in the Examiner in recent months.
 

DaveM

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
16,028
Quick question DS. Has the mass of ice increased or decreased?
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
cHeal said:
Why does this piece of data trump all the data released in the last 5 years which points to the complete opposite?
The question above could be rephrased to: why does this piece of data trump the daily dose of propaganda of "irreversible global warming" for the past 5 years?

I challenge you to seek out the information for yourself to see that the warmest year of the past 10 was 1998. The past 5, when you look at the figures shows no such increase in temperatures.

While Frank Ross last week (Prionsias De Rossa) was saying he was assaulted by nasty people from We Are Change, the truth was that he fell over while trying to chase down and grab the camera off one of the guys videoing him and that We Are Change were the ones who flagged down the Gardai to deal with ex-internee Frankie. I will theorise that Prionsias or a colleague of his were in contact with the media to spin the story to cover over his rush of blood to the head.
Now if you only listened to RTE and Radio you'd never have heard what really happened. That is why POLITICS.IE is a Diamond in a sea of excrement.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top