Mike Davis wrote:The Arctic extent ans area were recovering from the minimum reached in 2007 when he made that claim. The volume and thickness were recovering from the 2007 minimum when the ice claim was made. The fact all claims about the Arctic ice are Estimations/ Guesses/ Fantasies and Monckton was repeating results from so called scientific research groups. The results are available at web sites where they study ice at the Poles and using partial results to confirm a position are common practice in the climate research community. As a matter of fact the IPCC is based on that principle. Monckton is only following the example already set by the Climate alarm Team. It does not make sense to discredit the person who shows the problems that exist. It makes more sense to discredit the people creating the problems. Monckton is only pointing out the error of their ways and the errors are enormous.
The counter point is: Based on what? What period of time was used to determine the "Average" ice volume in the Arctic? What method was used to determine the average ice volume in the Arctic at the time they are referring to? Two scientists can look at the same data and arrive at opposing results. There is evidence that a particular scientist used the same data to produce 2 opposing papers.
Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000.
"Ice extent is an important measure of the health of the Arctic, but it only gives us a two-dimensional view of the ice cover," said Walter Meier, research scientist at the center and the University of Colorado, Boulder. "Thickness is important, especially in the winter, because it is the best overall indicator of the health of the ice cover. As the ice cover in the Arctic grows thinner, it grows more vulnerable to melting in the summer."
Mike Davis wrote:Groupie:
Do you realize what you are promoting. 5th lowest on record that is 31 years of observation by 15 satellites during that period with each satellite having improved resolution. Which has nothing to do with Monckton's claim that the ice has been recovering since the minimum reached in 2007. If it was not recovering it would have been the lowest. The claims by NASA are estimates of ice volume based on a period that is to short to even be considered as useful. Do you realize 30 years is less than 1 percent of 15 thousand years since the last glacial maximum.
Mike Davis wrote:Monckton was referring to a specific year and comparing the ice at the time of his research to 2007. At the time of Monckton's research the ice was recovering from the minimum it reached in 2007 so Monckton's claim was true.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests