Arctic Sea Ice, Warmed by Air and Water, is at Record Low for February

February 20, 2014


Kitsap Sun:

Arctic sea ice growth has slowed dramatically in recent weeks, thanks in large part to abnormally warm air and water temperatures. Sea ice now sits at record low levels for mid-February.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as of February 18, sea ice covered about 14.36 million square kilometers in the Arctic. The previous low on this date was 14.37 million square kilometers in 2006.

The main culprit — in addition to the overall trend of global warming — is likely the rash of warm temperatures. With the polar vortex bringing cold air down to the U.S. this winter, warmer temperatures have been the norm in the Arctic. From February 1-17, temperatures were 7.2 to 14.4F above normal for much of the Arctic. Some areas have been even warmer.

“Right now, the Arctic is pretty warm everywhere. If I look at temperature anomalies, there’s a huge anomaly over the Barents Sea and Sea of Okhotsk of about 10C (above normal) compared to 1981-2010,” said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Stroeve also said that warm waters in the North Atlantic have slowed ice growth, which is part of a decades-long trend due to both natural variability and human influences.

The decline in sea ice is one of the key indicators of climate change. Sea ice in January, the last full month for which data is available, has declined 3.2 percent per decade since 1979 compared to the 1981-2012 average. That equals roughly 18,500 square miles in ice lost per decade, the same area as Vermont and New Hampshire combined. This past January ranked as the fourth-lowest year on record, with 2011 being the all-time record lowest.

70 Responses to “Arctic Sea Ice, Warmed by Air and Water, is at Record Low for February”

  1. […] Kitsap Sun: Arctic sea ice growth has slowed dramatically in recent weeks, thanks in large part to abnormally warm air and water temperatures. Sea ice now sits at record low levels for mid-February…  […]

    • Chris Ehly Says:

      My apologies for disrupting your drum circle of like-minded individuals. I saw this article, and just laughed at the fact that it’s shelf-life had already expired. Then, I saw yet another comment about melting ice and sea-level rise… just couldn’t help myself.

      Before departing, I’d like to point out that you guys take yourselves much too seriously and you aren’t near as smart as you think you are (can’t believe you really think the glass is going to overflow… obviously not midwesterners). If you’re gonna question someone’s intelligence, education, or understanding of physics, you might want to actually know something about the subject ahead of time.

      Carry on with your personal attacks of people that don’t agree with you 100%, down-voting everything they type, and changing the subject when you can’t rationally make a decent argument. After all, you’re not here to discuss anything, you’re just here to listen to each other bang on the drum.

      • skeptictmac57 Says:

        Nice performance piece Chris! You almost had me believing you 😉

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “… just couldn’t help myself”, says Chris. Obviously. He is out of control. Very few people deliberately embarrass themselves as he did .

        “… might want to actually know something about the subject ahead of time”, says Chris. We all do know “something” about the subject, and Chris might want to study up before the next time that he “can’t help himself”.

        Drums? Boom-Boom-Boom-and ba-da-BOOM to Chris!

        Don’ t let the door hit you in the rear end on your way out this time, and when you return and really want to discuss something rather than spout ignorance, we’ll be here waiting (boom-boom-boom-boom).

        PS Chris, you DO realize that saying “you guys aren’t near (sic) as smart as you think you are” is a sure sign that you have no real arguments to present and have lost the debate? (To say nothing of the whining that makes up your whole last paragraph).

        • Chris Ehly Says:

          Well lets see Dumboldguy:

          This particular article expired less than 2 days after it was written in the newspaper, and was already wrong when it was posted here. (nobody seems to want to discuss that fact).

          Obviously NOBODY tried my GED science experiment… The cup doth not runneth over. The arguments of thermal expansion in a cup is a nice little excursion, but altogether impractical. Anyone that attempts this grade-school experiment would have to mentally admit that some internet “troll” as I’ve been labeled was correct after all.

          Of course, I gather that a few of you knew that it wouldn’t, which is why you’re now slipping more ice into the cup, and changing the subject of a bad Arctic sea-ice article to “The World ice is going to melt!!!”.

          Let me know when you’d like to talk about Sea Ice again… and how you measure sea-level in micrometers.

          • Well those two days might be representative of your attention span with your like-minded people. Just because there was a record minimum extent in 2012 doesn’t mean its of less importance today, any more than even winter extent is experiencing lows. What we do know is that it represents a trend – or are you disputing that there is a trend in ice melt in the Arctic? And please lets talk about volume and not extent then ok?

            And then there is this extremely narrow focus on sea ice melting and YOUR connection to sea level rise, when noone is making any claim here that sea ice melt adds to sea levels. If you hat bothered to read the replies sea ice melt is just one of several lines of evidence of global warming. Another effect of this warming is thermal expansion of the oceans as well as rising the surface temperature. But you don’t believe in those too either right?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            He’s b-a-a-a-a-c-k! With more foolishness, of course. Denialist trolls are nothing if not predictable.

            “This particular article expired less than 2 days after it was written”, he says.

            I say WHAT? Newspaper articles don’t “expire”. If we could figure out what he’s talking about, maybe we’d discuss that non-fact with him.

            “Obviously NOBODY tried my GED science experiment because it the same stupid example that ignorant trolls always throw out”, he says. Just for kicks, I have just thrown three ice cubes in a full glass of very cold tap water and set it aside to replicate Chris’s “experiment” (which I am sure he has never done himself—he has just heard it endlessly repeated in denier troll world).

            While we’re waiting to see what happens, we can do some simple math and predict how far the water will rise and whether the glass will overflow.

            Coefficient of expansion of water X depth of water X change in temperature = rise in water level (we will treat the expansion of the water here as a linear thing, since it can only go up)

            .00012 X 6″ X ~40 degrees F rise in temp= .o288 inches = ~1/32 of an inch, which is ~.73 mm = 730 micrometers (and yes, we can measure this in “micrometers” if we choose—it’s just a matter of moving the decimal point—do you know about “decimal points”, Chris?)

            The cup actually may NOT runneth over, but not because the water level didn’t rise over the top. Actually a !/32 inch rise in a 6″ glass is really quite impressive. It can be extrapolated to a 5/8″ rise in a 10 foot deep swimming pool and a rather large number for a mile deep ocean that I won’t state because it would upset Chris and is misleading because of other factors anyway. If Chris has read and understands all this, I wonder if he is now any closer to “mentally admitting” that we were correct in labeling him “some internet troll”.

            Oh yes, if the glass does not overflow because of the increased volume due to thermal expansion, it will be because of those pesky things called adhesion, molecular cohesion, surface tension, and how they relate to “meniscus”. The water level will actually rise higher than the rim but may not spill because of these factors. I can’t wait to look at my glass when it reaches room temperature and see if a few drops succeed in spilling. (And there are a whole lot of drops in the ocean).

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            So I’m really struggling here Oldguy. Of course you probably knew that would happen. Can you help me out a little bit? You seem really good at the whole “math thing”, but I really want to learn.

            Can I ask what the circumference of your 6″ glass is, and at what step are we converting cubic inches to a linear dimension? I’m totally lost….

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I said DNFTT earlier, but there is a small chance that Chris is just a poor benighted soul that really IS seeking knowledge from us on Crock rather than being a pest (I’m being charitable).

            “Can I ask what the circumference of your 6″ glass is, and at what step are we converting cubic inches to a linear dimension?”, asks Chris.

            It was a normal “hand sized” drinking glass, and at that scale the circumference is immaterial. Since the glass has a fixed shape and volume, its contents can only go “up” (and over the rim) when they expand. It’s different in the ocean, where expansion can take place in three dimensions. So, we’re only talking in one dimension, a linear one, and you measure “up” in feet, inches, meters, mm or cm or microns (micrometers), never in “cubes”. No “conversion” needed.

            “I’m totally lost…I said earlier” Indeed you are, if you’re not a troll

            (And has anyone noticed that Chris’s “schtick” here is very similar to Dave Burton’s? Hmmmmmm—-do we have something “untoward” going on here?)

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            Never mind… I think I figured it out. Your glass was roughly 4″ across to get a 1/32″ rise. I take it your glass did not overflow? (mine didn’t either).

            I’m gonna also assume you used some standard 1″ ice cubes, which made up roughly 4% of the total volume… I think. So, I guess my next question is, how much sea ice is there in relation to global ocean volume?

            Google came up with 1,347 (10^6) total ocean volume, and I came up with 18.3271 (10^6) of global sea ice… or roughly 1.3% total ocean volume. I rounded that up to a 1/3rd of our experimental glass of water. Which leads me to believe that if the world were truly a cylinder like our glass, the maximum rise in sea level from melting the worlds sea ice would be around 350 micrometers.

            How close did I get?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Didn’t you read my other comment? My glass, which was more like 2-1/2″ in diameter, DID overflow a tiny bit and had a nicely bulging positive meniscus. And the # of cubes and their size is immaterial—-take a glass of cold water filled to the very top, put some ice cubes (2-3-4) in, let them melt and all of it warm up to room temp, and it WILL rise over the rim—you could do it with a soup bowl—just add a proportionate amount of ice cubes.

            You are playing with us here on the sea level rise. EVERYONE who has even the slightest knowledge knows that if all the land ice melted, sea level would rise ~230-240 feet Your math is way off.. Why didn’t you just google “How much would sea level rise if all the ice on earth melted?” rather than try to “figure it out”? You can’t seem to deal with ice cubes in a glass, never mind the whole planet.

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            I didn’t Google how much the sea would rise if all the ice on the world melted because mankind wouldn’t exist at that point, nor do I believe there is any such thing as a run-away train of temperature, or a “tipping” point of CO2 levels. None of those things make a lick of sense to a simpleton with a basic understanding of thermodynamics, and who’s been around long enough to have survived “The coming Ice Age”, Peak Oil, Y2K, West Nile Vile, the Bavarian Bird flu, etc.

            Notice I have never said “the world isn’t warming”, nor have I denied that ice does indeed melt coming out of an ice age.

            In a conversation about sea-ice, I pointed out the laugh-ability of an article that was expire the second it was posted, but that doesn’t fly here (hence my point in lightening up), and I’ve been routinely attacked on every single thing I’ve posted.

            I guess I should admit I didn’t vote for Obama at this point too.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I am having much difficulty following your train (wreck) of thought here. You asked a simple question about melting ice and sea level. It has a simple answer and none of it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with whether man is here or not. It’s just physics and math.

            Then you launch into your unsubstantiated OPINIONS about “stuff”, thereby proving that YOU are the simpleton. I survived WW2 and that has no more relevance here than your list of “survival accomplishments”.

            You’ve been “routinely attacked” on every single thing you’ve posted because we all think you’re a troll playing games with us. Either that or you’re abysmally ignorant of science, and your “attitude” makes us NOT inclined to educate you. Up your game or go away—-I’m done responding to your stupidity. DNFTT

            I guess I should admit I didn’t vote for Obama at this point too.
            (That’s true of a lot of other fools as well. Fortunately, he didn’t need your vote).

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            I responded to the OP, was on topic, and took exception to his statements on SEA ICE specifically. You can read up (down actually) and see that my entire contention with all of this is regarding sea ice, and its inaccurate portrayal.

            Sea Ice isn’t responsible for the observed Sea Level rise, as I’ve already you and I have already illustrated it absolute minuteness in regards to the ocean’s vastness.

            The constant attempt to derail that original ON-TOPIC discussion is glaringly obvious. I have made no other arguments outside of sea-ice, and I have been (for the most part) 99.99% correct in all of my assertions and beliefs. If you disagree with that statement, by all means copy my statement and lets go over it.

  2. climatebob Says:

    A bit off topic but I need some help. Kevin Trenberth has just published some research on the missing heat and it appears there are not enough monitoring stations to give a clear answer. It seems to me that if 70% of the Earths surface is water and if the oceans absorb 90% of the heat then the oceans play an overwhelming part in climate change. So how much monitoring is there? A quick look at Wunderground shows tens of thousands of land weather stations but what about the oceans. We have Argo with 3500 buoys for ten years but what about the deep oceans and especially the deep trenches and the deep hydrothermal circulation flow.
    I know they are difficult to monitor because of the pressure and lack of sunlight for power but if we have satellites going every which way surely there must be some monitoring down there.
    Does any one have any ideas where I could get some information or is it still in the too hard basket?
    I want to add something on the subject to my web site.

  3. greenman3610 Says:

    I think the Argo, and what they can derive and estimate from that – is the best actual measurement. There are other indirect indicators, like sea ice loss and sea level rise.

    • Chris Ehly Says:

      I just love the sea-level rise argument.

      Go throw 4 ice cubes into a glass, and then fill it to the rim with water.

      Watch it with an accurate timer, and write down the exact time that the glass overflows from melting ice. Please post your results here.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        guess I don’t understand your statement.
        thermal expansion is most of the sea level rise we have seen thus far.
        Ice sheet melt is closing in fast, if its not already the leading contributor.
        these processes imply heat, most of which enters the system thru the ocean.
        arctic sea ice contributes negligible SLR. what is your point?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        What “sea-level rise argument” are you talking about? The physics of your example is being talked about down the hall in the kindergarten class—-take it down there and try it out on them. (Be ready to up your math, though—they are throwing not 4 but “2 squared” cubes of ice in the glass).

        And you ARE aware that eventually the glass likely WILL overflow a tiny bit, because the water will warm to room temperature after the ice melts and will expand as it does so? Talk to daveburton about that—-he has some wonderful formulas you can use—he measures changes in volume in meters, of course, but you can work around that

        • Chris Ehly Says:

          This is one of my favorite posts. (I gave it thumbs up!)

          It’s amazingly arrogant, somewhat insulting, but gently ends with a hint of helpfulness.

          I’ll take you up on your offer, since you seem so genuinely concerned about my education: Please express to me (in Kindergarten terms) how much or little water expands when it freezes. Likewise, explain how much water expands when it warms from 0.1 degrees to ambient temperature.

          • You do know that most of the sea level rise we have today is from thermal expansion right? And you know the main reason why we want the Arctic ice is because it reflects light compared to a dark sea that absorbs it (leading to more thermal uptake). So your ice cube experiment doesn’t really demonstrate anything of significance with regards to sea level rise:


            Please enlighten us on what you are really questioning with regards to current observations? Do you dispute that increased heat update doesn’t cause thermal expansion? Do you dispute that warmer oceans also results in warmer atmosphere that also melts land ice in addition to the sea ice?

      • patricklinsley Says:

        …..then slide in a few more ice cubes that were sitting in the freezer into your glass……get it? Our fear is the ice sheets ON LAND from Greenland currently frozen sliding into the ocean thus raising the sea level. Hopefully that explanation didn’t hurt your feelings. I’m sure being a buffoon has hurt you in life enough already.

      • Take your 4 ice cubes put them in a glass. Fill it to the rim with ice cold water (the rim being where our cities lie and most of people live). Then put it in a warm room as the cubes melt the water also expands from the heat, some times during this time you also take some new ice cubes and plop them in the water to simulate the melting of Greenland and Antarctica as well as all other glaciers on land that has been receding unrelentingly. That’s what sea level rise is about.

        A +6C warmer world means all our land based ice is going and you get 75 meters of sea level rise given enough time to melt it all.

        But isn’t this basic knowledge from like High School now?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          ‘”But isn’t this basic knowledge from like High School now?”

          Actually this is taught to middle schoolers and even upper elementary students nowadays. Which raises the question of how far our new denier went in school, and more importantly, did he pay attention in class and do his homework?

      • There is a ice cube on a slide with a bucket at the end. The ice cube melts and the water goes in the bucket, the ice is on land in glaciers and on Greenland and the Antarctic. There are no climate scientists saying sea level will rise due to sea ice melting. You have the wrong experiment. Sea level is rising because ice on land is melting and water expands when heated.

      • First off, SEA ice matters not because it will raise sea levels but due to ALBEDO. Second, you’re all confused over land ice versus sea ice. Or was that just posturing?

      • It is the thermal expansion of the water that is causing most of the sea level rise. And yes, the lower albedo of open water also adds to the warming, leading to yet more sea level rise.

        Melting ice on the land is starting to be a larger contribution to sea level rise.

        • Chris Ehly Says:

          If melting sea ice extent lowers albedo, does increasing sea ice extent raise albedo?

          • Indeed, more sea ice = more albedo. But you might be aware that sea expansion is not happening from warming in the Arctic alone, its happening from every surface of the ocean all over the world and increased levels of CO2 is responsible for the majority of the energy imbalance, not albedo loss. You might also note that snow cover on land also affects albedo a lot, which disappear both from changing weather patterns as well as general warming. This can be very different from year to year, depending on where snow actually falls. This year, many parts of even Norway have had very little snow (to the point of bush fires starting), UK practically haven’t seen much snow either, while east-USA had the opposite. Then again the west-USA snow cover drop was rather significant. These variations can swing albedo greatly from year to year, but the CO2 forcing is really untouched by these and provide earth with a gradual warming in spite, including continued ocean expansion from warming where over 90% of the warming actually goes.

          • All else being equal, yes. But, as the ice gets thinner and younger, it melts more quickly, and the lowers the albedo. More ponding and soot also lower it, too.

    • These are really bad trends. If summer arctic is ice free years ahead of schedule, what can we expect from weather and climate soon? If it’s more of the same devastation, we are in for a rough ride. And no, we cannot adapt to that. I feel like lashing Tillerson to a raft in the ocean and letting him adapt to that.

  4. Cy Halothrin Says:

    It is, of course, a little premature to say how 2014 will turn out in regards to Arctic Ocean ice coverage. In the year of the biggest summer meltdown, 2012, Arctic ice was looking pretty good all through the spring season, before suddenly plunging off a cliff in summer.

    Nevertheless, it certainly is worth pointing out that while Fox News has been focused on just how cold it is in the eastern half of the USA (and remember, the USA is the whole world as far as Fox News viewers are concerned), the Arctic region has been experiencing record high temperatures for this time of year. Even Alaska, which is in the USA (do Fox News viewers know that?) is experiencing record warmth, but somehow that has failed to make headlines.

    The denialist industry will slice and dice weather reports in order to fit their ideology. I can’t help but laugh (though it isn’t funny) when, after Typhoon Haiyan killed over 8000 people in the Philippines, Fox News fans were gloating over the fact that summer 2013 produced no big hurricanes (hitting the USA), so that proved global warming is a myth.

    Deep ocean warmth – yeah, I keep thinking that sooner or later we are going to have an El Nino, and when we do, things will get interesting fast.

    • astrostevo Says:

      @Cy Halothrin : “hile Fox News has been focused on just how cold it is in the eastern half of the USA (and remember, the USA is the whole world as far as Fox News viewers are concerned), the Arctic region has been experiencing record high temperatures for this time of year.”

      Yep. Meanwhile in South Australia, my home town of Adelaide has experienced thirteen days over 40 degrees celsius (104 Fahrenheit) this summer :

      “I keep thinking that sooner or later we are going to have an El Nino, and when we do, things will get interesting fast.”

      Me too. The latest ‘New Scientist’ maagazien I browsed at the newsagent suggested that this year could well be the year that El Nino hits too.

  5. Chris Ehly Says:

    Slicing and dicing… I like those choice of words.

    Arctic record low ice for mid-February lasted all of 2 days.

    Keep praying for your El Nino though, we all know you desperately need some more reassurance that your beliefs are well-grounded.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Has another useful idiot arrived on scene to challenge daveburton and Omknownothing for supremacy and tax our patience? Are we being punished or rewarded?

      And did we all notice CE’s “slice and dice” of “record low ice for mid-February lasted all of 2 days”. You nailed that one, Cy, and, just like Mikey of cereal fame, “He likes it”. LOL

    • I am sure in your world the 1998 record El Ninõ is very important in peddling the idea of a “pause” in global warming. And of course now that we are on track for the next El Ninõ (which will break all previous temp records) its something we have to “pray for”? Why is this El Ninõ less important than the one in 1998 for you?

      Just checked Cryosphere Arctic ice extent, and its still record low from what I can see.

      • Chris Ehly Says:

        I just checked the data file (again).

        I have no where Cryosphere gets its numbers… Arctic ice extent for February 20th is 14.51948 10^6 sq km.

        2005, 2006, and 2011 were all lower.

        • Daily? Daily? What’s the trend? It’s noise plus trend. And not in one location. Measure the total ice on land and check to see if the trend is down. NASA already did that. The news is in. Go read it. And please don’t say you know more than scientists. If so, take it to NASA. Here we believe in science. We trust scientists more than the occasional amateur whacko denier conspiracy buff with a GED. Your anti science arguments don’t have a prayer here.

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            In order to write this particular piece, you’d have to check it daily, now wouldn’t you? I mean, if your window of opportunity to put this out is only 2 days then I guess you need to type fast.

            I mean really…

            About trends: The Little Ice Age was colder than now (I learned that in my GED class), therefore, its warming.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Please, all. DNFTT!

    • Scientists measure. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. What they measure is sea level rising and Greenland, glaciers, and the Antarctic losing land ice mass.
      NASA says so.
      They don’t need their beliefs grounded. They have perfectly good instruments they can use. There is little evidence that they pray to them.

    • The force is not strong in this one. He can’t see that the yearlong record is at or near the very lowest volumes for all measurements so far.

    • Funny, living in Cornwall which has experienced 5 “50 year” storms in the past 2 months and looking at this winters record highs for Alaska and looking at the record high temperatures set in Australia …

      But if you feel uncomfortable that man rather than Gawdlemitey is responsible for the climate then carry on but don’t expect the data to support your fantasy.

      • Chris Ehly Says:

        “The principal weather change likely to accompany the cooling trend is increased variability-alternating extremes of temperature and precipitation in any given area-which would almost certainly lower average crop yields. The cause of this increased variability can best be seen by examining upper atmosphere wind patterns that accompany cooler climate. During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates, in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season.

        During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.”

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Chris does at least know to put “….” marks around the things he copies and mindlessly posts without understanding them. Where did you get this gem, Chris? Mind if we go look at the whole thing and who said it? Got a link? Can you explain it in your own words?

          PS My “ice cubes in a full glass of water experiment” is finished—a few drops did in fact spill over the side, but most of the expansion was held back by surface tension and formed a nice positive meniscus. How did yours turn out?

        • Chris Ehly Says:

          more ad-hominem… seems to be a prevailing theme around here.

          My glass did not overflow. 1/32″ of an inch over a 4″ surface won’t break surface tension. In fact, I observed the meniscus over the level of the rim to begin with. The surface area of your glass appears to be roughly 2.5x the surface area of mine.

          Here is a link to the Science News article I quoted:

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            I should of said “2.5x” less than mine…

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Lord love a duck! That article is one year short of FORTY years old! Are you not aware that we have learned a lot since 1975?

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            The article is pretty much a 180 degree turnabout of today’s “theory”, I agree. Makes you wonder how anyone could be confident in “science” when it takes less than a generation to completely change your mind doesn’t it?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            always best to check the vids before embarrassing yourself in this way

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            It’s always best to read the article before dismissing organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the World Meteorological Organization, or the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

            If you would have actually read the article, you’d note that it probably the most balanced article you’ve read in years; more a study of science at the time then the politically charged garbage both side put out these days. It’s exactly the sort of balance in science that I personally seek, which leads me down dark alleys to places such as this, and likewise into the bizarre world of ultra conservatives that don’t care one bit about the environment.

            Honestly, its pretty hard to tell the difference between either side. Neither talks much about science.

          • Lol, perhaps the article represents the balance you look for so you don’t have to take responsibility? Its the classical “its out of our hands” thought that is really the cause of us taking CO2 levels to the high amounts we already have (btw it just touched 400ppm already and will likely reach 403ppm in May). Is it one thing scientists are clear of its the effect of rising CO2 levels, including the few that thought we might even go into an ice age back in the 70s.

            You also have this idea that “scientists” predicted doom based on a few observations of a few scientists without taking in the idea that they represent a minority in the big picture. It’s a classical generalization of a whole scientific field based on a few odd theories that didn’t come true.

            Watch the video that Peter linked to give you an idea about this.

            There really is overwhelming consensus and evidence that continued rising CO2 levels will have severe effects on our civilization. Anyone disputing this now is really looking for any crackpot idea they can believe in that dispute this so they can feel better about themselves, or as we often say, are in denial.

          • Chris Ehly Says:

            So you didn’t read the article either.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            JCL DNFTT!

  6. Ryan Gainey Says:

    Do we have a thermal expansion denier? That’s cool, like the occasional creationist who doesn’t believe in DNA.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I hate to be judgmental, but “if it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, and walks like a skunk….etc” and that’s just for Chris Ehly’s first comment.

      His second one leads to the broader conclusion that he likely denies any “inconvenient truths” that intrude on his world of self-delusion.

      If he sticks around, we may have our third Stooge (since earlier occupants of that spot have been banished from Crock).

      • Another rock head, eh? You know I have seen deniers recruit their ilk to plague blogs with nonsense. A new wave? Seems more intellectually challenged. Meanwhile EP spouts a laundry list of self discrediting mendacity (mostly ignored) and mono weaves his semantic existential proofs against GW. My spell checker insists on misspelling monologs. For rock head it’s hard to beat four name Cowan, who got German electricity exports to France backward and proudly touted his mistake as proof of…. Something. Its like the Monty Python member looking for a good argument who complained that all he was getting was naysaying. Not that I mind. I will always treasure the ocean only rises in the center argument, the question of whether water evaporation due to increased heat cools, and why the global temperature is controlled by geothermal because it’s Exothermal and this proves CO2 is tertiary. Cherished.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Now you’ve done it! Mentioning “the ocean only rises in the center argument, the question of whether water evaporation due to increased heat cools, and why the global temperature is controlled by geothermal because it’s Exothermal and this proves CO2 is tertiary” caused a swoon, and I still haven’t installed the seat belt on my computer chair.. If you had thrown in the Oregon Petition and all those Engineer-Scientists, I’d still be down there on the floor. Have mercy!

      • Chris Ehly Says:

        I’ll stick around.

        I won’t hide behind a fake name, and I’ll try my best not to insult people for their political slants… and I won’t like about surface tension either.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      He appears to have the sophistication of the “Why are there still monkeys?” school of denierism.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Oooh! Oooh!

        I think I know the answer to that!

        Because there are still bananas?

        • They don’t make deniers like they used to. We got Cowan who reads a chart wrong for proof. Isn’t anybody smart enough to check first before they spout off and look foolish? Haven’t heard much from him since he embarrassed himself claiming Germany was a net electricity importer from France. You have to admit, it’s more pleasant dismissing him than listening to monos pedantic semantic philosophical proofs of existence mental bs.

      • Chris Ehly Says:

        keep banging the drum bro. you’re pretty good at it.

  7. According to Cryosphere Today the area is now down into same lows as 2011 and 2006. I have a feeling we will see a summer area similar to the 2012 year record minimum. It has a pretty bad start on the warming season.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: