Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears as though some climatologists say the ice area in the north pole has been gradually shrinking since the 1940's. However, I just do not understand how people could accurately measure ice in the north pole between the 1930's and 1970's. We didn't have satellite data for ice coverage in the until 1979. Yet full on global warming activists prove that there was more ice in the poles back in 1950;s. Am I missing something? Were there planes circling and monitoring daily weekly ice indexes accurately from the 1930's-1960's? Ships going around a dodging big ice chunks circling the north pole during the dark dead of winter and finding precise areas of ice coverage? Were there select years during these times they use for data from natives or watchers from a specific area, like Northern Alaska, when the ice was pretty intense for those selected years? I understand when climatologists or anyone in real life believes in something, they try to make every effort to skew or even exaggerate their point. I think some climatologists go a bit overboard on data. Some areas that I just looked at on the ice coverage state that certain areas are above average in ice this year in the north pole region but they say it's the lowest ice coverage year ever. Yet there were areas around south and west of Greenland as well as areas on the west side of Russia that had above average ice. Yet the lowest year ever? I guess some climatologists get paid to find every possible way to prove there is less ice. I don't mean to put any scientists down or say their work is false, but to me past data of ice before 1979 appears somewhat inaccurate and bit exaggerated. Even this year I'm not actually sure if I believe the charts and graphs of ice coverage area are completely accurate.
It appears as though some climatologists say the ice area in the north pole has been gradually shrinking since the 1940's. However, I just do not understand how people could accurately measure ice in the north pole between the 1930's and 1970's. We didn't have satellite data for ice coverage in the until 1979. Yet full on global warming activists prove that there was more ice in the poles back in 1950;s. Am I missing something? Were there planes circling and monitoring daily weekly ice indexes accurately from the 1930's-1960's? Ships going around a dodging big ice chunks circling the north pole during the dark dead of winter and finding precise areas of ice coverage? Were there select years during these times they use for data from natives or watchers from a specific area, like Northern Alaska, when the ice was pretty intense for those selected years? I understand when climatologists or anyone in real life believes in something, they try to make every effort to skew or even exaggerate their point. I think some climatologists go a bit overboard on data. Some areas that I just looked at on the ice coverage state that certain areas are above average in ice this year in the north pole region but they say it's the lowest ice coverage year ever. Yet there were areas around south and west of Greenland as well as areas on the west side of Russia that had above average ice. Yet the lowest year ever? I guess some climatologists get paid to find every possible way to prove there is less ice. I don't mean to put any scientists down or say their work is false, but to me past data of ice before 1979 appears somewhat inaccurate and bit exaggerated. Even this year I'm not actually sure if I believe the charts and graphs of ice coverage area are completely accurate.
Vessels sailing to the Arctic to explore or to hunt whales and seals made early sea-ice observations. Over the centuries, technological advances and commercial opportunities in the Arctic led to more frequent and regular sea-ice observations, with associated increasing accuracy.
The record length of this sea ice chart series makes it especially valuable. The AARI record covers the arctic warm period in the 1930s and 1940s (a 20th century warm interval of comparable magnitude to that of the 1990s), a cold period in 1960s and 1970s, and it precedes the later rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
I've provided these quotes to illustrate the following:
There is no grand conspiracy theory. Nobody is going "overboard on data"--whatever that means.
Researchers readily acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of older records; nobody ever claimed "the charts and graphs of ice coverage area are completely accurate".
It is also acknowledged that there were warm periods in the past such as the 1930s-1940s period referenced above. Certainly nobody is getting "paid to find every possible way to prove there is less ice".
Thank you for the sites. See, what you showed is more accurate how it has increased and decreased over periods of decades. But many sites online and news talk about how ice is getting less and less. Overboard on data is what I mean, you showed actual factual data where sea ice increased in these years. I have to disagree though on what is said "nobody is going overboard". I've read it on websites and other climate websites (a number of them) this year and they say we are going to have no "ice by 2050". 25 years ago they said we would have no ice by now and the oceans around New York may start flooding the city. The data that is present now, to me anyway, is a bit skewed on how low they say it is on the sea ice data from previous years even though it's above normal (ice has extended outside of the normal lines" is a some areas around the north pole this year. So I think they do go a little overboard because the climate offices are funded on proving global warming.
Thank you for the sites. See, what you showed is more accurate how it has increased and decreased over periods of decades. But many sites online and news talk about how ice is getting less and less. Overboard on data is what I mean, you showed actual factual data where sea ice increased in these years. I have to disagree though on what is said "nobody is going overboard". I've read it on websites and other climate websites (a number of them) this year and they say we are going to have no "ice by 2050". 25 years ago they said we would have no ice by now and the oceans around New York may start flooding the city. The data that is present now, to me anyway, is a bit skewed on how low they say it is on the sea ice data from previous years even though it's above normal (ice has extended outside of the normal lines" is a some areas around the north pole this year. So I think they do go a little overboard because the climate offices are funded on proving global warming.
That's a fair point: some people--especially in the media and on forums--definitely go overboard. That's why I always prefer to go directly to the peer reviewed articles themselves.
I've provided these quotes to illustrate the following:
There is no grand conspiracy theory. Nobody is going "overboard on data"--whatever that means.
Researchers readily acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of older records; nobody ever claimed "the charts and graphs of ice coverage area are completely accurate".
It is also acknowledged that there were warm periods in the past such as the 1930s-1940s period referenced above. Certainly nobody is getting "paid to find every possible way to prove there is less ice".
Thanks for being rude. Your comments towards me are rather concerning and it shows maybe you are trying to cover up. I was just saying my thoughts, no need to correct me and be snarky. Most of your comments I've read from your other posts are copies of data from sites like NOAA and data show nothing but copies of NOAA data and nothing really creative or intelligent. Thanks though for responding and keep up with your copied data that shows nothing really accurate other from copied data. I understand you may get angry when someone disagrees but please show data that is true. You even said many others are "TROLLS". when they don't believe your fictional copied data. Maybe if you were not so rude and condescending others would learn from your posts. It shows that you are unconfident and not sure and you have to have anger to show your point which in turn shows you are incorrect about this.
Last edited by Educator1982; 06-02-2018 at 03:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
