What's new
  • ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

A

arsekick

Well-known member
1705289841874.png

1705289883972.png
 
A

arsekick

Well-known member
Porky82 said:
Oh look here's ya mate Richard taking payments of oil and coal companies!!
www.desmog.com

Richard Lindzen

Richard Lindzen Credentials Background Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013.3“Faculty News,” EAPS, May 31, 2013. […]
www.desmog.com www.desmog.com

Another pathetic attempt!
Click to expand...
Have you clicked onto any of the links in that shit you posted ?

Try this one ya dick head :ROFLMAO:
"In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services."



So what most 'stnuc get paid for their time, not sure what your point is ?

"In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.17"
 
A

arsekick

Well-known member

​

7. Arctic sea ice changes over the last 10,000 years​

In recent years, several researchers have developed an interesting new “proxy” for Arctic sea ice cover, called “PIP-25”, which can be used for estimating long-term changes in Arctic sea ice extent. A “proxy” is a type of measurement which can be used as an indirect estimate of some property – in this case, Arctic sea ice cover.

In 2007, Prof. Simon Belt and colleagues noticed that a type of algae which seems to only grow in sea ice produces a specific group of molecules called “IP-25” – see Belt et al., 2007 (link to abstract, link to Google Scholar). They found that if the sea ice in a region melts in the summer, some of this IP-25 will sink to the bottom of the ocean as part of the ocean sediment. However, if there is no sea ice, or if the sea ice remains frozen all year, then the ocean sediment for that year doesn’t contain any IP-25. They realised that if you drill an ocean sediment core for that region, you could use the presence of IP-25 as a proxy for “seasonal sea ice”, i.e., ice that only forms for part of the year.

Later, it was realised that if the IP-25 was absent you could also use the presence of certain species of phytoplankton to distinguish between periods with permanent ice cover (less phytoplankton growth because the sea ice reduces the amount of sunlight under the ice) and ice-free conditions (more phytoplankton growth). So, by combining the IP-25 and phytoplankton measurements in an ocean sediment core, you have a “PIP-25” proxy series (“P” for phytoplankton) which can distinguish between three types of sea ice cover:

  1. Permanent ice cover (low IP-25 and low phytoplankton)
  2. Seasonal ice cover (high IP-25)
  3. Mostly ice-free (low IP-25, but high phytoplankton)
In Stein et al., 2017 (abstract here, although the paper is paywalled), Prof. Rüdiger Stein and colleagues presented the results from two new PIP-25 ocean sediment cores (from the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas) and compared them with another two cores from earlier studies in different parts of the Arctic (one from the Laptev Sea and the other from Fram Strait).

We have adapted the maps below from Figure 2 of Stein et al., 2017, with some editing to make the locations easier to see. The maps show the location of the four cores relative to the maximum and minimum Arctic sea ice extents in 2015. The four cores are quite well distributed throughout the Arctic and so should give us a reasonable estimate of how sea ice has varied throughout the Arctic over longer time scales.

Notice that all four locations were ice-free during the summer minimum (06 September 2015), but three of the locations (the Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea cores) were ice-covered during the winter maximum. In other words, these three locations currently experience “seasonal sea ice cover”. The remaining location (the Fram Strait core) was still outside the ice extent even during the winter maximum (17 March 2015). So, currently that location is “mostly ice-free”. However, as we will see, the PIP-25 sediment cores suggest that these conditions have changed over time.

Core-locations-1024x664.jpg
Figure 8. Locations of the 4 ocean sediment cores of Stein et al. (2017).
For the four plots below, we have digitized the PIP-25 results for the four sediment cores from Figure 10 of Stein et al., 2017. Roughly speaking, PIP-25 values below about 0.5 indicate that the region was mostly ice-free at the time (Stein et al., 2017 use the term “reduced sea-ice cover”), while values above about 0.7 indicate that the region was permanently ice-covered, i.e., it remained ice-covered throughout the entire year (Stein et al., 2017 use the term “perennial sea-ice cover”). Values between 0.5 and 0.7 indicate that the region experienced “seasonal ice coverage”, i.e., it was usually ice-covered during the winter maximum, but ice-free during the summer minimum.

all-four-cores-585x1024.jpg

Figure 9. The PIP-25 proxy reconstructions of sea ice coverage of the last 10,000 years for the four locations described above. Data digitized from Stein et al. (2017).


As we discussed above, three of the locations (the Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea sites) currently experience “seasonal ice coverage” and the Fram Strait site is currently “mostly ice-free”. However, according to the PIP-25 data, over the last 10,000 years, all four of these sites have gone through extensive periods with less ice coverage as well as extensive periods with more ice coverage. In particular, all four locations seem to have experienced much less ice coverage 6,000-8,000 years ago (i.e., well before the Bronze Age) than they do today.

This suggests two points particularly relevant to our discussion:

1. Arctic sea ice extents have shown a lot of variability over the last 10,000 years (at least), so we shouldn’t be too surprised that the extents have substantially changed since the start of the satellite records in 1978.

2. Despite the widespread belief that the current Arctic sea ice coverage is “unusually low” (based on a combination of the 1978-present satellite records and computer model results), it seems that the coverage was actually a lot lower 6,000-8,000 years ago.

8. Summary​

  • While Arctic sea ice has generally declined since the start of the satellite era in 1978, Antarctic sea ice has generally increased over the same period.
  • While there seems to have been some warming in part of Antarctica (the western peninsula) and this has received a lot of media attention, most of the continent hasn’t warmed and in many regions has actually cooled.
  • After re-calibrating the pre-satellite data, it now transpires that Arctic sea ice has alternated between periods of sea ice retreat and growth. The satellite record coincidentally began at the end of one of the sea ice growth periods. This has led to people mistakenly thinking the post-1978 sea ice retreat is unusual.
  • The results from new sea ice proxies taken from ocean sediment cores suggest that Arctic sea ice extent has varied substantially over the last 10,000 years. They also suggest that Arctic sea ice extent was actually less before the Bronze Age than it is today.
  • The current Global Climate Models are unable to reproduce the observed Arctic sea ice changes since 1901, and they seem to dramatically underestimate the natural sea ice variability.
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
Brother Nature said:
What about the fake clouds that China is making? Are they being produced to hide the Jewish space lasers?

:peek:
Click to expand...
what about them? you tell me.

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor | The Epoch Times

"After pointing out that the UN IPCC has 40 models which disagree wildly with each other and which cannot replicate the PAST, John Clauser states:

The models do not take account of cloud cover.

Cloud covers between 5% and 95% of the earths surface.

There is a 104 watt difference on one square meter (between 104 and 208 watts per square meter) between one third and two thirds cloud cover.

The impact of CO2 and methane?

Half a watt per square meter."

the US & other governments around the world use geoengineering for weather control.

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil apps.dtic.mil


Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025​

A Bill Gates Venture Aims To Spray Dust Into The Atmosphere To Block The Sun. What Could Go Wrong?​

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/?sh=41f30443793b
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4nb-etuKDAxW6JjQIHezUDiYQFnoECCgQAQ&url=https://climateviewer.com/weather-as-force-multiplier-owning-the-weather-in-2025/&usg=AOvVaw1w4469YzGZw62fUq92IO2Y&opi=89978449

It’s Time to Engineer the Sky​

Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block incoming sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4nb-etuKDAxW6JjQIHezUDiYQFnoECCgQAQ&url=https://climateviewer.com/weather-as-force-multiplier-owning-the-weather-in-2025/&usg=AOvVaw1w4469YzGZw62fUq92IO2Y&opi=89978449

you think this stuff isn't happening?:crazy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top