Barber 2009 : “Multiyear ice is effectively gone”

David Barber, Canada’s Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, said the ice was melting at an extraordinarily fast rate. “We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere,” he said in a presentation in Parliament.

http://www.todayszaman.com/

Good call.

http://nsidc.org/

 

 

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Barber 2009 : “Multiyear ice is effectively gone”

  1. Andy WeissDC says:

    The Party Line propaganda continues unabated, without the least regard to the truth. If you dare to point out what is actually happening or point out their failed predictions, you are labeled as paranoid and anit-science.

  2. Jimash says:

    “we are almost out of multi year ice” , as if it were a necessity of some kind.

    ““From a practical perspective, if you want to ship across the pole, you’re concerned about multiyear sea ice. You’re not concerned about this rotten stuff we were doing 13 knots through. It’s easy to navigate through.” ”
    IN AN ICE BREAKER !

  3. sunsettommy says:

    The lies keeps flowing.

  4. Robert Austin says:

    The nice thing is that all the outlandish and unwarranted claims and predictions by certain “scientists” and public figures will be searchable and permanently available to some future researcher writing a successor book to the classic “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Do these people never think to themselves, “how will this sound in the future if it turns out that my predictions and conjectures are wrong”?

  5. magellan says:

    Does anyone recall the post about Max Planck institute prior to Hansen’s 1988 Congressional testimony that stated water vapor would lead to more clouds thereby acting as negative feedback?

  6. Eyes Wide Open says:

    But it’s “rotten” ice!!!

  7. suyts says:

    Multi-year ice being way better than one y/o ice…….morons.

  8. Ill wind blowing says:

    Sorry to be the party pooper guys, but that green color code refers to ice all the way up to 10 years of age. There even was some small quantity of 20 year ice long ago.

    Nowadays, the same green color in that ice thickness chart technically has the same definition but the thickest ice is effectively gone. With the exception of some small freakish floe there are no 10, 9, or even 8s and probably tiny amounts of 7 and 6s. Most of the 5s have shrunken drastically compared to the past.

    So, for all intents and purposes, that green now represents 3-5 with bare residues of the rest. That is, in comparison to the past state of the Arctic ice cap, “effectively gone”. 🙂

    • suyts says:

      lol, so, after the 2007 minimum, how much 10 y/o ice would you expect to see?

      Its a silly argument. Why is Sep 2007 stricken from the memory of alarmsts? It wasn’t even 4 years ago.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        No, 2007 is not, as you would like to believe, stricken from the memories of Climatologists and Arctic experts.

        It was a super shrink year that saw more than the usual (AGW induced) shrinkage. This was due to clearer days and higher than average winds. Since higher than average events are brief the extent was due to rebound after winds and sun light returned to normal; but only in extent.

        What about thickness of the thickest ice (green 3-10 year ice) from 2007-2009. Take a look at this link which I previously posted and see how the 3-10 year ice shrinks dramatically in spite of the 25% increase in pathetically thin 1 year ice.

        It is you who clings to 2007 as a magical year and it is you who repress the 27 years before it. And please don’t bore me with the ridiculous blinders on statement about a “trend” changing since 2007.

        It is the reason why the Arctic has shrunken in the past that make it obvious what will happen to it in the future. The reasons for its past shrinkage are not going away. They are here to stay.

        Every temporary deviation from the long term trend that skeptics crow about is nothing but a temporary, short term variation. They are like loops in the road to the future. The road veers left, right or sometimes takes you in the opposite direction from the destination (this is known as the scenic route).

        Don’t worry; it’s a short trip.

      • The reasons for its past shrinkage are not going away. They are here to stay.

        As Mr. Goddard says above: put up or shut up. Put your money, your career, or your life on the line: 2011 will have a greater or a lesser minimum than 2007?

        Money or physical forfeit. Your choice, charlatan.

      • Scott says:

        Ill wind blowing says:
        June 28, 2011 at 4:15 am

        It was a super shrink year that saw more than the usual (AGW induced) shrinkage.

        And later…

        It is the reason why the Arctic has shrunken in the past that make it obvious what will happen to it in the future.

        Can you please provide a peer-reviewed publication that confirms that the loss in the Arctic is due to GHG warming? If not, can you provide your own analysis confirming this instead?

        See, unlike many of the others here, I actually believe that GHG warming has had an effect on the Arctic ice. However, I disagree with the CAGW believers that the very large observed losses are due solely to changes wrought by CO2. I think there has been other external forcings or some sort of regime change to cause the larger-than-expected loss. Thus, it’ll be hard to tell if the shorter-term stabilization in extent will continue, if the last decade’s extreme loss will resume, the past 30 years’ slow decline will be the outcome, or we’ll see some significant rebound. Until a definitive link is established, that’s where I’ll stand.

        -Scott

    • the thickest ice is effectively gone

      Ah, “science” strikes again with a meaningless, untestable hypothesis. Good job on the dangerous, gutsy call. If we say the ice isn’t getting any thinner, you’ll be able to say, “well, I only said the thickest, which you can’t prove still exists”, and if we call you out on the incontrovertible fact that it’s still there you’ll claim that we’re trying to parse the definition of “effectively”. So you’ve said nothing, I suppose it ought to be treated as nothing.

      Get on your jetski, you lazy bint, and zip on up there & measure it.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Have you ever even looked at an ice thickness image that breaks up the ice into at least 5 categories? I have seen ice thickness images broken down into yearly thicknesses up to 8 years. You obviously haven’t since you are quibbling about semantics and not facts

        Even without seeing those images it is obvious that the Arctic has shrunken considerably. That obviously implies progressive thinning. If you don’t acknowledge this, then let’s make this reductio ad absurdum argument.

        As shrinkage progressed in the past did the ice cap remain the same thickness?

        If shrinkage continues into the future do you assume that previous thickness will be retained? If so, do you seriously expect the possibility of a 100 m wide, 10 m thick section of ice that shrinks down to 10 m wide and retains its original 10 m of thickness?

      • Scott says:

        Ill wind blowing says:
        June 28, 2011 at 2:40 am

        I have seen ice thickness images broken down into yearly thicknesses up to 8 years. You obviously haven’t since you are quibbling about semantics and not facts

        Maybe you have IWB, but I sure don’t view you as one knowing a lot about the ice since you made it clear a few days ago that you didn’t even know that the average ice thickness is greater in the summer than the winter. Instead, I’m guessing you’ve just looked at a few plots over the years and are now trying to sell those facts.

        I’ll stick with my own analyses of the data made publicly available by multiple groups/satellites.

        -Scott

      • Nothing you are saying as any bearing whatsoever on anything. So let us take the statements one at a time to show how pointless and fact-free they truly are:

        Have you ever even looked at an ice thickness image that breaks up the ice into at least 5 categories?
        Why, no, no I have not. I also haven’t seen a thirty sided decagon or a unicorn with two horns. No-one on Earth has physically measured enough of the actual ice to have any basis for breaking down the arctic sea-ice into gradations finer than “New”, “One Year”, and “Multi Year”. And, in fact, since the argument is about the bizarrely unscientific statement that, “We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere” what effect does the precise thickness of the multiyear ice have on your specious argument? None? Good. Shut up.

        Even without seeing those images it is obvious that the Arctic has shrunken considerably.
        From what to what? Is the current sea ice extent greater or less than 4,130,000km²? Oh, greater? Then how can it have “shrunken” except in the sense of “not at all”?

        From when to when? 1959 to now? It has “shrunken” by a negative value on that time scale, darling.

        And what the hell does “considerably” mean outside of your barking mad value judgment? Your postings here are “considerably” inane, if I had to apply an adjective to it.

        That obviously implies progressive thinning
        Yes, obviously a larger number is smaller than a smaller number. Obviously when something gets thicker and covers a greater extent it’s “progressive” thinning. Sort of like “progressive” economics. Also, try looking up the word “regressive” because that is closer to what you’re talking about.

        As shrinkage progressed in the past did the ice cap remain the same thickness?
        Oh look, when something in the past was smaller it wasn’t as big as it is now. Hell, I could have told you that without even looking at my pokémon cards.

        If shrinkage continues into the future do you assume that previous thickness will be retained?
        Again, you have redefined “multiyear” to mean “thick enough for some thick cunt in some thick land’s tetrahydrocannabinol-infused slumber”. Sorry, sweetcheeks, if it’s multiyear it’s fucking multiyear. I don’t honestly care if it’s 0.3mm (a specious number you should be all too familiar with): if it’s two or more years old, your little fantasy about it “not counting” is solipsistic camel dung: if the polar ice was melting away at some (conveniently undefined) increased rate mutiyear ice wouldn’t be there at all. Ipso facto, you illiterate shyster.

        If so, do you seriously expect
        I expect that you get on a fucking jetski and fucking ride it to the north fucking pole, you lying sack of garbage. 15 Spetember, 2020. I’ll buy the jetski and transport it to Point Barrow, AK. You won’t show up, because you’re fundamentally a coward and a liar.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Nothing you are saying as any bearing whatsoever on anything. So let us take the statements one at a time to show how pointless and fact-free they truly are:

        As soon as I read that I was in eager anticipation of your “analysis”.

        Have you ever even looked at an ice thickness image that breaks up the ice into at least 5 categories?

        Why, no, no I have not. I also haven’t seen a thirty sided decagon or a unicorn with two horns. No-one on Earth has physically measured enough of the actual ice to have any basis for breaking down the arctic sea-ice into gradations finer than “New”, “One Year”, and “Multi Year”. And, in fact, since the argument is about the bizarrely unscientific statement that, “We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere” what effect does the precise thickness of the multiyear ice have on your specious argument? None? Good. Shut up.

        Tell me, how many nails did you eat for breakfast?

        Yes people have physically measured the ice as well as naval ships in order to calibrate the satellites that measure ice thickness. However it seems that, as I’ve said, you’ve never seen one of those charts or, if you had you must consider them as part of some evil conspiratorial plot.

        Needless to say, you can’t see the ridiculous contradiction in your statements. People have not physically gone to the Arctic to measure the ice? How then has ANY ice thickness, 1 or 2+, been determined in the first place? If it’s by satellite, then why do they give yearly multi-year measurements?

        How rational is your assertion that no one has physically measured the ice when the thickness image that STEVE posted on this thread depends on some kind of measurement? How about the PIPS model images that STEVE swears by? Yes, they include 4 and 5 year ice. How do they accomplish that amazing feat? If people don’t measure what PIPS clearly shows to be 4 and 5 year ice, is it elves that do the measurement for STEVE’s favorite model?

        Even without seeing those images it is obvious that the Arctic has shrunken considerably.

        From what to what? Is the current sea ice extent greater or less than 4,130,000km²? Oh, greater? Then how can it have “shrunken” except in the sense of “not at all”?

        From when to when? 1959 to now? It has “shrunken” by a negative value on that time scale, darling.

        Huh?

        And what the hell does “considerably” mean outside of your barking mad value judgment? Your postings here are “considerably” inane, if I had to apply an adjective to it.

        That obviously implies progressive thinning

        Yes, obviously a larger number is smaller than a smaller number. Obviously when something gets thicker and covers a greater extent it’s “progressive” thinning. Sort of like “progressive” economics. Also, try looking up the word “regressive” because that is closer to what you’re talking about.

        As shrinkage progressed in the past did the ice cap remain the same thickness?

        Oh look, when something in the past was smaller it wasn’t as big as it is now. Hell, I could have told you that without even looking at my pokémon cards.

        You obviously don’t pay attention to what you have previously said.

        If shrinkage continues into the future do you assume that previous thickness will be retained?

        Again, you have redefined “multiyear” to mean “thick enough for some thick cunt in some thick land’s tetrahydrocannabinol-infused slumber”. Sorry, sweetcheeks, if it’s multiyear it’s fucking multiyear. I don’t honestly care if it’s 0.3mm (a specious number you should be all too familiar with): if it’s two or more years old, your little fantasy about it “not counting” is solipsistic camel dung: if the polar ice was melting away at some (conveniently undefined) increased rate mutiyear ice wouldn’t be there at all. Ipso facto, you illiterate shyster.

        Whatever (as I shrug).

        If so, do you seriously expect

        I expect that you get on a fucking jetski and fucking ride it to the north fucking pole, you lying sack of garbage. 15 Spetember, 2020. I’ll buy the jetski and transport it to Point Barrow, AK. You won’t show up, because you’re fundamentally a coward and a liar.

        It’s actually 2020-2030 according to the majority of AGW scientists. Also the North Pole will be open before that, maybe by 2015 or so. It should be possible to get there taking the scenic route through the Northwest Passage. If one goes through the Northeast Passage they might be able to pick up some genuine Russian Vodka. 🙂

        Just a few years after that and it would be possible to take a much more direct route to Santa’s defrosted home by dodging some rotten 1 year ice “floes” here and there.

        By the way, if I don’t get back it’s because I ran out of fuel, unless you give me a nuclear powered jet ski. However, if you buy me a yacht I’d be able to make it. I’ll pay for the fuel.

        If you spit your nails out, we could take a cruise together and have a few drinks. 🙂

  9. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Barber. That’s Phil’s buddy. I can’t believe how shallow Phil is. And he’s a professor at a University—right Phil.

  10. Ill wind blowing says:

    The point is, suyts, that you cannot falsify the claim that the “multi-year ice is effectively gone” by showing an ice thickness image where one color represents a wide range of thicknesses. Simple reason is, as you seem to admit (for the 10 yr ice), that that particular color has shrunken drastically in surface area over the past 30 years as well as dramatically thinned. Take a look at these charts, http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png

    It was even worse in 1980 (not the average between 1981 and 2000) where the green was 90% of a huge Arctic ice cap.

    By the way, only the “end of ice melt season” (September) images are useful in making comparisons.

    • you cannot falsify the claim that the “multi-year ice is effectively gone”

      You should have stopped there. You cannot falsify a meaningless tautology.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Since you’re telling me that I should have stopped there it seems that you did stop there and did not progress to the ice thickness images that I linked to. That’s all you need to show that multi-year ice has drastically reduced in extent.

        Below is an animated ice thickness image that shows what has been happening to 5+ year ice. Are you going to ignore that as well?

      • multi-year ice has drastically reduced in extent
        Huh, so on a cherry-picked timescale your non-point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have nothing to do with the fact that “We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere” is an utterly shameless lie. Colour me surprised.

    • suyts says:

      IWB, you entirely missed my point. I’m not trying to falsify any claims about the arctic ice, I’m only attempting to interject some reality context to the claims.

      2007 marked the lowest ice extent in recent history. That fact, and that fact alone would indicated that we should see less multi-year ice in the immediate years afterward as opposed to the years preceding it. As far as going back to the eighties…… uhmm ok, but there was even more during the LIA…….so what?

      So, we have more multi-year ice this year. I expected as much. You should have too if you’re watching the ice as much as you claim. It isn’t something to get hyperventilated about.

      Ill, I don’t know what tomorrow brings. I don’t know the causes for ice loss nor ice gain. That might not shock you much, but here’s some information that might shock you. You don’t either.

      It doesn’t pass my notice that when Dr. Stroeve pops by to comment on something, you know who interacts with her? Skeptics. You know who don’t? Alarmists. Why? Are you guys afraid of gaining some particular insights that would crush your world view? Or maybe she’ll state something that contradicts Romm or Cook? She studies the stuff for a living. She’s highly educated and well respected. And, it seems that she holds similar (but less vitriolic) views as alarmists. So, every time she comes by and I notice, I attempt to gain some insight or knowledge that I didn’t previously have.

      She can’t state exactly why the ice is diminishing, I can’t state why, and you can’t state why. None of us can. But that’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists. And this is why we’ll win any intellectual argument about such matters.

      We understand man’s limitations in ability and the limitations of man’s ability to know things. Alarmists don’t……. and that my friend, puts skeptics miles ahead of the alarmists in the race to find answers to questions.

  11. NikFromNYC says:

    You guys are utter tossers.

    Blah blah fucking blah.

    It’s like group therapy was cancelled in the second room, so now the potty fetishists are shouting out to Mensa kittens.

    Paying attention to a nit?

    Oh, how it itches!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s