View Article & Comments

Here is the graph with the average extent lines. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png As you can see the ice extent is still pretty far from "normal"! It never would be normal by now as the ice which melted this year when the record was shattered in Summer was formerly tough and thick multi-year ice. This winter's re-freeze will not repair the damage done.

Also this is the second time you have posted an update which shows the arctic ice extent during one of its brief moments of not being at a record low. Is this what you will do all winter? An honest person would admit that the ice has been at record low levels, pretty much all the time, since early august.

Hi Ted (Edward)

You read far to much into the politics of when people do what they do.

I'm glad to say my prediction was headed "it will be over by December, from what your trying to say I said it would be over by November! I did not say that, and thats why I have posted this follow up NOW!

The other posting I did was when the sea ice extent went below another year. 2012 maintained a linier level as I had expected it to do, your right for pointing out it then went back above other recordings, but the line it maintained indicated it would keep up with the prediction of being over by December, and as you can see it did:)

And more importantly, the volumn is still well below normal and will probably never return to anything like the levels seen in the 70s.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?

aka the graph skeptics wish you not to see.

Hi Tom

Ah, the 1970's.......a cooler period, so much so, some of the so called "climate scientists" who are saying "warm" now, were in fact saying "cold" then.

What the Arctic sea ice extent is saying now is that the results do not mean a great deal. You can have a good cover of ice, as in September(2006) and then end up with poor cover after a few months (November and December 2006).

What you need to have in that part of the world as a guide, is a temperature recording of the Oceans along with wind speed.

Recording of just the ice cover is not very informative, as we have seen warm water freezes faster so to try and pin a lable of it being the end of the world is silly to say the least.

Ted

Why is the data from 2006 missing from the display you have left, it's as if someone has cherry picked the best and the worst.

The FULL picture shows how daft it is to only use a few years of data, even my display shows how silly this is

Look at March 2012, it's at the 1990's average, the NAO was positive, as it was in summer 2006. Summer 2012, 2007, 1958 etc are all negative NAO.

The graph I posted was the one you used to post. It shows the years with the lowest ice extents. Obviously, the ice extent levels aren't that significant in November, a wide, weak and thin layer of ice was obviously going to quickly appear as winter approached. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that everything is back to normal in the arctic? Do you really think that could happen after the record was broken by the shocking melt of an extra 760,000 square miles? Did you look at the graph Tom posted? As Tom said, it's the volume which is significant, and that is nowhere near normal (neither is the extent BTW). What on Earth makes you think things are "back to normal"? The artic will quite probably never be back to normal. It's broken.
What's happening in the Arctic is significant. It's melting. By volume, there is less and less ice each year. Soon there will be no ice in Summer. The IPCC woefully underestimated the speed of the melt when they predicted that this sort of thing wouldn't happen for another 60 years. How the loss of such a large and significant part of the world's landscape will affect the climate and weather elsewhere remains to be seen. There are some who say that Hurricane Sandy's change of track was due to the warmer Arctic. It will obviously contribute to sea level rises. Others say it is responsible for the slowing of the jet-stream (and it's associated meanderings). This slower jetstream means Atlantic depressions take longer to pass over the uk so, when they do, they drop more rain over a longer period. It has also been observed that after a large melt, Europe often gets a colder winter. Time will tell. But you can't pretend that nothing significant is happening. That really won't wash.

Comment edited by ted rising (Twitter) on Monday November 26, 2012 at 6:19 AM EST

Ted

I respect your views and others who are mislead about the world coming to an end and all the rest of it.

The penny will drop on how little the time frame is that you and the rest use to confirm this spurious analysis. Thirty years is not enough data for a climate analysis, and yet you continue as if it is!

How are you guys going to feel come the day the people who have mislead you admit to thier mistakes.

The only thing that is true about what you have been led to believe is "If you pay people enough they will inform you what it is you want to believe", and that applies to the Government funded scientists who have their pensions hanging on this topic.

All the rubbish that is put our way that says we are funded by the tobacco and oil industries is pure propaganda and is part of the same organisation that misinform you.

You seem to be confused. 30 years only applies to satellite data. Information about temperature, rainfall, ice extent etc. has been kept for generations. All point to a rise in temperatures and a melting icecap.

It appears your believes are based solely on a cynical mistrust of Scientists. It's as if you believe the science departments in all the world's leading universities are staffed by criminal fraudsters who are interested only in lining their own pockets! You say "If you pay people enough they will inform you what it is you want to believe". This may well have been what confirmed skeptic and petrochemical billionaire Charles G Koch thought when he hired Berkley University to research this subject. Unfortunately for him, their conclusion was; Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.

It is interesting that you distrust scientists, who, in my opinion, always seem far more driven by their fascination of the subject than by the comparatively small financial reward. And yet you take your cue from groups like the Heartland Institute who are blatantly more interested in making money and don't care if it's at the expensive of the environment. I know which group of people I trust to inform me about scientific matters.

Ted

You and the rest of the AGW gangare being taken for a long ride.

I only pointed out to you last week that the amount of Man Made co2 amounted to 1 part in 62,000

So thats:

61,999 parts from nature

See what I mean!

How do you control nature's co2 if it is co2 that drives climate, what can you do about nature's co2?

The FACT is Co2 FOLLOWS temperature increase by about 400-600 years. Co2 does NOT drive anything other then Government grants!

CO2. Yes some climate scientists did say in the 1970s that the world was in a cooling trend. However, they were, as now, in a very small minority.

The majority of climate scientists have always predicted warming during the 21st century, even during the post war cooling period, and this was before the age of computer models.

Ted

You have to stop this stuff about the majority of climate scientists have always predicted warming during the 21st century, this is not true.

What your saying is that the majority of "Government Climate Scientists" perdict warming. That is far removed then then your statement of "Majority of Climate Scientists".

As I have already stated..."If you pay people enough they will inform you what it is you want to believe" and there is not much doubt those who are being paid to give Governments what they want to hear are the very ones you address as being the "majority".

If it was a simple as you said they would show you an experiment that provs co2 can warm the Earth, they CANT produce this as there are far to many feedbacks.

Think this through....

1 part man made co2 in 62,000 parts of co2

that means there are 61,999 parts co2 from nature

"How are you guys going to feel come the day the people who have mislead you admit to thier mistakes."

We will feel relieved, of course.

But how will you feel if 97% of the worlds climate scientists turn out not to be liars, cheats and gangsters? How will you feel when the World Bank's forecast turns out to be true and as a result many are poor and starving and they start immigrating on mass into your country? How will you feel if wars break out around the world. How will you defend yourself when people discover you set up a website based on second hand lies, distorted truths and misunderstandings?

I only say this as you have more to loose than me. Your gamble.

"1 part man made co2 in 62,000 parts of co2
that means there are 61,999 parts co2 from nature"

This is one of your favorite quotes. Do you really think with this one line you have undone 30-40 years of work by 1000s of climate scientists around the world? You really think you're that clever and the scientists are all that stupid/crooked? Honestly?

There are about 750 billion tons of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere each year of which nature is responsible for 720. The natural carbon cycle means 732 billion tons are reabsorbed by the seas, plants etc. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is because the 18 extra billion tons of man-made stuff is not absorbed. Hence there is measurably a steady increase in CO2. 18 billion tons of a gas is quite a lot.

Looks like you're not going to get that Nobel Prize after all, sorry.

"."If you pay people enough they will inform you what it is you want to believe"

There you go again with this line. Like every good skeptic you know the power of repetition.

Let me ask you this. If scientific results can be bought so easily, why don't scientists simply cough up global temperature figures which show an enormous year on year increase? It would make their lives so much easier.