in before either side gets here
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the images have been faked by an international cabal of global warming conspirators that can haz all your monies. Just ask GeneralJim when he gets here.

s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Centrifugal force sends all the extra water to the equator/tropics. I just bought a beach house in Burkina Faso.

hypnoticus ceratophrys: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the images have been faked by an international cabal of global warming conspirators that can haz all your monies. Just ask GeneralJim when he gets here.

Me vote.
Funny you.

Giltric: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Centrifugal force sends all the extra water to the equator/tropics.

That's what she said. And by she, I mean your mom.

Maybe we should just cut/paste the comment section from the link and save the time of rehashing the same old melodrama?

Ice always melts faster in the summer of an election year.

/Booze evaporates more quickly too.
/Coincidence?

I can see my house and David Lee Roth!

Much of it melts every summer, then returns with winter.

And no matter how many times this cycle repeats, you still hear "OMG WHAR ICE GO?" in several articles each summer.

Don't be silly, the big oil PAC money won't disappear until the price of oil falls.

Two Words: Northwest Passage, baby

How would you measure the amount of ice that was lost in the polar summer and returned in the polar winter....10k years ago? Or even 100 years ago?

Giltric: How would you measure the amount of ice that was lost in the polar summer and returned in the polar winter....10k years ago? Or even 100 years ago?

Best we have is satellite data from 1978 to 2009.

I'm sure some geologists may have opinions, though.

J. Frank Parnell: Much of it melts every summer, then returns with winter.

And no matter how many times this cycle repeats, you still hear "OMG WHAR ICE GO?" in several articles each summer.

Arctic ice cap in 1980
Arctic ice cap in 2012

So, what you're saying is that we live in Westeros and are currently in the middle of the longest summer ever?

Giltric: How would you measure the amount of ice that was lost in the polar summer and returned in the polar winter....10k years ago? Or even 100 years ago?

Oxygen isotopes from Antarctic ice cores.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Maybe we should just cut/paste the comment section from the link and save the time of rehashing the same old melodrama?

BORING

NEW DRAMA!!!!

s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Assuming this is even moderately serious:

Arctic sea ice is already floating on the ocean, and as such doesn't displace much* water when it melts, and its contribution to SLR is minimal. The real concern is that it's a high albedo (one of the highest on Earth) substance being replaced by one of the lowest, increasing the planet's energy imbalance. There are also potentially non-trivial impacts to regional atmospheric circulation, AMOC strength, sunlight available for primary productivity, etc[1].

There are density differences between fresh and salt water that actual mean melting floating ice results in a small but calculable increase in sea level[2].

[1] Maslowski, W., J. Clement Kinney, M. Higgins, and A. Roberts (2012), The Future of Arctic Sea Ice, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40(1), 625-654, doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-10534 5.
[2] Noerdlinger, P. D., and K. R. Brower (2007), The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level, Geophysical Journal International, 170(1), 145-150, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03472.x.

Clearly, this is a result of the accelerating rise in global surface temperature averages that we've seen over the last 15 years.



Oh wait....

/cue the tards that don't know that it's possible to cool after a period of warming.

hypnoticus ceratophrys: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the images have been faked by an international cabal of global warming conspirators that can haz all your monies. Just ask GeneralJim when he gets here.

Climatologists have been scamming us for years to keep that sweet gravy-train of research grants and bling rolling in.

Noted climatologist:

Jon Snow: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Assuming this is even moderately serious:

Arctic sea ice is already floating on the ocean, and as such doesn't displace much* water when it melts, and its contribution to SLR is minimal. The real concern is that it's a high albedo (one of the highest on Earth) substance being replaced by one of the lowest, increasing the planet's energy imbalance. There are also potentially non-trivial impacts to regional atmospheric circulation, AMOC strength, sunlight available for primary productivity, etc[1].

There are density differences between fresh and salt water that actual mean melting floating ice results in a small but calculable increase in sea level[2].

[1] Maslowski, W., J. Clement Kinney, M. Higgins, and A. Roberts (2012), The Future of Arctic Sea Ice, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40(1), 625-654, doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-10534 5.
[2] Noerdlinger, P. D., and K. R. Brower (2007), The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level, Geophysical Journal International, 170(1), 145-150, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03472.x.

Excellent. Thank you.

J. Frank Parnell: Giltric: How would you measure the amount of ice that was lost in the polar summer and returned in the polar winter....10k years ago? Or even 100 years ago?

Best we have is satellite data from 1978 to 2009.

I'm sure some geologists may have opinions, though.

bullshiat
We have tons of other proxy data, just like we use proxy data for everything else in climate study.
"Records assembled by Vikings showing the number of weeks per year that ice occurred along the north coast of Iceland date back to A.D. 870, but a more complete record exists since 1600. More extensive written records of Arctic sea ice date back to the mid-18th century. The earliest of those records relate to Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes, but records from that period are sparse. Air temperature records dating back to the 1880s can serve as a stand-in (proxy) for Arctic sea ice, but such temperature records were initially collected at only 11 locations. Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute has compiled ice charts dating back to 1933. Today, scientists studying Arctic sea ice trends can rely on a fairly comprehensive record dating back to 1953, using a combination of satellite records, shipping records, and ice charts from several countries.[1]"


For example: we know that there was MUCH MUCH MUCH less sea ice during the viking expansion.
Link

god why am I here ???

SevenizGud: Clearly, this is a result of the accelerating rise in global surface temperature averages that we've seen over the last 15 years.

www.woodfortrees.org

Oh wait....

/cue the tards that don't know that it's possible to cool after a period of warmin

While obvious and unsuccessful troll is both obvious and unsuccessful, I will point the following out to the few who don't understand the obfuscation.

Due to natural variability in the climate system, to speak meaningfully about trends, you want 20-30 years or more of globally-averaged, annual data. There are perfectly mundane statistical justifications for this.

15*12 = 180, not 179.

HadCRUT3 had a massive data coverage gap in the Arctic, which is warming faster than the global mean, resulting in a cool bias.



HadCRUT4 has partially resolved this problem. Not coincidentally, HadCRUT4 shows warming more in line with the other independent surface instrumental and satellite records:



This schtick was unoriginal back when Brockway was doing it. Troll harder.

hypnoticus ceratophrys: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the images have been faked by an international cabal of global warming conspirators that can haz all your monies. Just ask GeneralJim when he gets here.

I don't see any green text yet. He's late.

This reminds me of the argument I got into this afternoon, when my best friend decided to act a lot less intelligent than she is and insist we don't have scientific proof that climate change is mostly human-driven at this point. I almost flung the phone across the room when I heard the words "Climate change is just a theory!"

Me: "Please allow me to share the definition of that term with you..."

Jon Snow: 15*12 = 180, not 179.

Curious that you say this, and then clearly cherry-pick the data to be more than 180 so you can add in some cooler months at the beginning.

And by cherrypick, I mean be intellectually dishonest.

And by intellectually dishonest, I mean damned liar.

namatad: For example: we know that there was MUCH MUCH MUCH less sea ice during the viking expansion.
Link

Funny, that's not what the people most familiar with the climatic history of the Arctic have established:

The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities[1].

Proxy data do not support the idea that the MCA had less Arctic sea ice than present[2]:



Look, there have unquestionably been times of lower Arctic sea ice than present. There's no need to spread misinformation about when and why it occurred.

[1] Polyak, L. et al. (2010), History of sea ice in the Arctic, Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(15-16), 1757-1778, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010.
[2] Kinnard, C., C. M. Zdanowicz, D. A. Fisher, E. Isaksson, A. de Vernal, and L. G. Thompson (2011), Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years, Nature, 479(7374), 509-512, doi:10.1038/nature10581.

Teufelaffe: J. Frank Parnell: Much of it melts every summer, then returns with winter.

And no matter how many times this cycle repeats, you still hear "OMG WHAR ICE GO?" in several articles each summer.

Arctic ice cap in 1980
Arctic ice cap in 2012

So, what you're saying is that we live in Westeros and are currently in the middle of the longest summer ever?

So...winter 1980, summer 2012. Gee, haven't seen THAT trickery before.

SevenizGud: Curious that you say this, and then clearly cherry-pick the data to be more than 180 so you can add in some cooler months at the beginning.

Sure I did, buttercup.

And by cherrypick, I mean be intellectually dishonest.

And by intellectually dishonest, I mean damned liar.

*yawn*

What can I possibly do to make a difference? There is absolutely positively nothing that I as a person can do to change anything on a global scale. Before you say, "if everyone did something small it would add up", I will say "have you looked into how much pollution a cargo ship creates in one passage of the Pacific Ocean?"

ZOMG! Things change!! Everybody Panik!

Trackball: What can I possibly do to make a difference? There is absolutely positively nothing that I as a person can do to change anything on a global scale. Before you say, "if everyone did something small it would add up", I will say "have you looked into how much pollution a cargo ship creates in one passage of the Pacific Ocean?"

Assuming you live in a democracy, you could vote for people that are serious about addressing global warming.

And you have no idea how much pollution a cargo ship creates. Per pound of cargo it is a lot less than a semi truck.

Krieghund: And you have no idea how much pollution a cargo ship creates. Per pound of cargo it is a lot less than a semi truck.

Wrong. A semi truck trying to cross the pacific will emit very little CO2.

0Icky0: Krieghund: And you have no idea how much pollution a cargo ship creates. Per pound of cargo it is a lot less than a semi truck.

Wrong. A semi truck trying to cross the pacific will emit very little CO2.

Especially if it's on a cargo ship.....

s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the arctic ice cap is a giant ice cube -- it displaces water when it's frozen so it's not adding to the volume of the oceans when it melts.

Now, if Greenland and/or Antarctica were to melt (because the ice is stuck on land and is not displacing the ocean around it), then we got problems.

Ishkur: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the arctic ice cap is a giant ice cube -- it displaces water when it's frozen so it's not adding to the volume of the oceans when it melts.

Now, if Greenland and/or Antarctica were to melt (because the ice is stuck on land and is not displacing the ocean around it), then we got problems.

I think if ANY entire countries start to melt, we got problems.

But I saw the "pack" was deep into the bearing sea on deadliest catch the other night. The websites' little movie didn't seem to show the ice creeping anywhere near the bearing strait....

s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

untaken_name: Ishkur: s2s2s2: Why are the coastlines the same in all those pictures?

Because the arctic ice cap is a giant ice cube -- it displaces water when it's frozen so it's not adding to the volume of the oceans when it melts.

Now, if Greenland and/or Antarctica were to melt (because the ice is stuck on land and is not displacing the ocean around it), then we got problems.

I think if ANY entire countries start to melt, we got problems.

If you take a glass of ice and fill it to the brim with water and leave it in room temperature the ice will melt and the water level will stay the same. Now you will get condensation on the outside of the glass but the water level will stay the same

ltdanman44: If you take a glass of ice and fill it to the brim with water and leave it in room temperature the ice will melt and the water level will stay the same. Now you will get condensation on the outside of the glass but the water level will stay the same

While the 4th grade science lesson is neat and all, I think you missed the part about ENTIRE COUNTRIES melting. The problems from that would be greater than water displacement, since everyone living in the country would die. I think they'd be a bit more concerned with that.

untaken_name: ltdanman44: If you take a glass of ice and fill it to the brim with water and leave it in room temperature the ice will melt and the water level will stay the same. Now you will get condensation on the outside of the glass but the water level will stay the same

While the 4th grade science lesson is neat and all, I think you missed the part about ENTIRE COUNTRIES melting. The problems from that would be greater than water displacement, since everyone living in the country would die. I think they'd be a bit more concerned with that.

yes I agree 100%. But you would be surprised how many adults do not know about this 4th grade science lesson and that is part of the problem.

ltdanman44: you would be surprised how many adults do not know about this 4th grade science lesson and that is part of the problem.

But your "4th grade science lesson" isn't technically correct (the best kind of correct!) when talking about the effect of melting relatively freshwater sea ice sitting on top of dense, salty ocean water. There is a small increase in SL due to the density differences.

Jenkins, A., and D. Holland (2007), Melting of floating ice and sea level rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 5 PP., doi:200710.1029/2007GL030784.

Noerdlinger, P. D., and K. R. Brower (2007), The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level, Geophysical Journal International, 170(1), 145-150, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03472.x.

Ugh, the "global warming" debate is like hiring a retard as court stenographer for a trial. It really doesn't matter what anyone says or what the truth is because it's all going down in the record as gibberish.

LadyBelgara:
This reminds me of the argument I got into this afternoon, when my best friend decided to act a lot less intelligent than she is and insist we don't have scientific proof that climate change is mostly human-driven at this point. I almost flung the phone across the room when I heard the words "Climate change is just a theory!"

Me: "Please allow me to share the definition of that term with you..."

Whilst yes you should explain what the definition of a theory is to your friend (at least from a scientific standpoint), you should also apologise to your friend for nearly braining them with a telephone. Your friend is quite correct in that we don't have hard proof that climate change is MOSTLY human-driven.

We have some evidence that suggests we do have an impact on our environment, we have working theories about how our environment is changing, we have working theories about how our environment works. But no, there is nothing that would be considered "hard proof". We also have lovely works of fiction from either side of the debate.

I'd also suggest that if I were to through a similar amount of money as is sloshing around this issue, I'd be able to get a peer reviewed and well received paper published that had a supported theory about eating paint chips being good for you. It rather clouds the issue.

And here's an interesting thing, at no point have I denied the climate is changing, yet people in this thread will react as though I have. Which further muddies the waters.

Vaneshi: Your friend is quite correct in that we don't have hard proof that climate change is MOSTLY human-driven.

Err, know how I know you don't know much about the topic? Hell, you could even go to wikipedia to get a basic introduction on the attribution of recent climate change. Or take a high school level chemistry course.

Here, a basic summary from NASA. It even includes citations.

Ok, I'll be the one to post these:

namatad: bullshiat We have tons of other proxy data

I think you mean anecdotal evidence.

The best hard data we have is from that satellite watching the ice for 30 years.

dragonchild: Ugh, the "global warming" debate is like hiring a retard as court stenographer for a trial. It really doesn't matter what anyone says or what the truth is because it's all going down in the record as gibberish.

Both sides bad so vote Big Oil.

cranked: Both sides bad so vote Big Oil.

Curiously 'big oil' doesn't stand to lose anything if carbon taxes are adopted. There are no plans to stop using so much oil, or to replace current technologies with new ones, just plans for a new tax.

cranked: Both sides bad so vote Big Oil.

More like, when both sides go full retard, ask yourself who directly benefits from the destruction of civil discourse.

Usually the deterioration of honest debate is deliberate.

Vaneshi: I'd also suggest that if I were to through a similar amount of money as is sloshing around this issue, I'd be able to get a peer reviewed and well received paper published that had a supported theory about eating paint chips being good for you. It rather clouds the issue.

Hey, look! It's an authentic "Both sides are bad, so ignore science!"

A funny thing happens when you look at the published evidence, however. From the journal Science:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

What does this say about your hypothesis that you "would be able to get a peer reviewed and well received paper published that had a supported theory about eating paint chips being good for you."? I mean, the fossil fuel companies have a rather ridiculous amount of money to spend, and yet a survey of the professional literature shows a remarkable pile of evidence showing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel combustion.

chimp_ninja: the recently observed climate change

What climate change?