I do know that NASA has determined that these icecaps grow and shrink on a regular basis showing both short term and long term cycles (the icecap edges show these changes much like old shore lines do). What could possibly be causing these cycles? I am wondering if there is a correlation between temperature signatures and icecap cycles on Mars with what has been measured here on Earth. I sure wish we had a rover that would head over there to collect ice core samples. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we find correlations all over the place? If correlations are found, it would be very hard to continue the argument for man-made causes re: temperature change.

As has been suggested, Francis is taking quite a bit of liberty in determining what is “normal.” Implicitly, she is saying that normal is what the satellites measured between 1979 and 2000. She would not be correct if we took the years 2000-2006 to be normal. Plus, we have enough ancedotal evidence to suggest that 1979-2000 levels have not been consistently normal over the past couple of centuries.

When I hear John Coleman say that “The Arctic is back to normal,” I understand that to be an approximate statement that in essence reflects the general conditions. I believe everyone who follows global ice realizes that the much of the ice is new. It is reported not to be thinner in all places. Also an interesting note: there are places around the Bering Sea now covered in ice that were actually ice-free in 1980.

Let us remember that some scientists have said that Artic Ice will be gone by 2013. Let us see whether Coleman’s statement turns out to be more accurate than that projection.

For those that take hope in news of Southern Hemispheric ice is expansion: a a colder climate most likely not a desired outcome for the human race.

What do you know about Martian ice caps?

I’m not really qualified to discuss ice caps on other planets in depth, (not that I’m qualified to discuss much of anything in depth) but I will comment that concerning Mars I have read that the recent south polar melting has been accounted for by observed albedo change.

(sorry about the multiple posts above I will know to be more patient in the future.)

Off topic but vaguely related to our conversation:

Some folks here may be interested in these reviews of a paper that came out in Geophysical Research Letters this week concerning the poor performance of climate models in Antarctica.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp

(If this is a duplicate post I apologize. My last posts seemed to disappear. I have not been here long enough to know if I should just be patient. Or a spam filter is blocking my links.)

Please discuss the icecaps on other planets in light of our own icecaps and your understanding of the cause of recent thinning on these other planets. Mars would be a good place to start.

Off topic but vaguely related to our conversation:

Some folks here may be interested in these reviews of a paper that came out in Geophysical Research Letters this week concerning the poor performance of climate models in Antarctica.

I provide 2 spins on it:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/bromsnow.htm

(If this is a duplicate post I apologize. My last post seemed to disappear. I have not been here long enough to know if I should just be patient.)

Off topic but vaguely related to our conversation:

Some folks here may be interested in these reviews of a paper that came out in Geophysical Research Letters this week concerning the poor performance of climate models in Antarctica.

I provide 2 spins on it (neither of which are harsh. I am sure some blogger will rant about it):

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/bromsnow.htm

Normal????? Normal for what, the last 30 years? How can anyone claim that 30 years out of a 4 billion year history tells us what is normal. I recall an article on this blog or over at junkscience.com about the early 1900’s Arctic having so little ice that ships were able to sail through the Northwest passage. Perhaps we should take our “average sea ice” calculations back that far.

“To ignore thickness is disingenuous when trying to present an accurate picture of the situation.”

Agree that thickness is more a sign of long term. We are in the first year of solar minimum, and cooling trends. While it may take years for thinkness to develope, the fact is that ice has increased the past year.

“Indeed it is Coleman who is presenting the spin in this case to support the anti-AGW agenda. As you say; even the source I used presented the 96% data. Which source do you think is more accurate: the one that gives more of the whole story or one that just exaggerates the facts he likes and neglects to mention the ones he doesn’t? ”

I prefer the real data, and not a spin.

“Indeed this is true to some extent and appears to have been true prehistorically also as supported by several kinds of evidence, yet the global climate has warmed and cooled. So why do you consider the S. pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?”

I consider the balance of the two to be a better long term indicator than either. Again there seems to be a natural pattern that when the North pole decreases in ice, the south pole increases, and vice versa. To rephrase your question aimed at the the AGW propaganda alarmists, “So why do you consider the N. [as opposed to the S.] pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?”

The fact is that the AGW alarmists have focused solely on the N. Pole to emphasize their position and totally ignoring and/or making excuses as to why the south pole is at an all time high.

While I agree with you that 4% is of little statistical significance, I will mention again that sea ice coverage is far from the whole story. To ignore thickness is disingenuous when trying to present an accurate picture of the situation. Indeed it is Coleman who is presenting the spin in this case to support the anti-AGW agenda. As you say; even the source I used presented the 96% data. Which source do you think is more accurate: the one that gives more of the whole story or one that just exaggerates the facts he likes and neglects to mention the ones he doesn’t?

Indeed this is true to some extent and appears to have been true prehistorically also as supported by several kinds of evidence, yet the global climate has warmed and cooled. So why do you consider the S. pole to be a superior short term global thermal indicator again?

I’m not sure why you would consider this a slug fest, I didn’t come here for a fight and most folks here seem fairly civil; few ad homs and until now the immature rhetorical questions have been kept to a minimum. I’ve been in much worse.

Actually if you had read the letter in Nature I think (hope) you would realize how poorly your description fits it. You can read the abstract here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

At least Gore is up front about it. I see where Gore also advocates investing in shale oil/tar sands. I find this even more disappointing due to their huge carbon footprint but I suppose that goes to show that he is not out to destroy the fossil fuel industry. The whole energy sector is hot and will continue to be.

It’s funny how so many folks claim that the greens have been co-opted by capitalists while others like El Vaquerro claim the commies run the show. LOL

“Which still required unsubstantiated alarmism.”

Just so we clarify what alarmism we are talking about the POTUS pushed increasing ethanol production on the basis of increasing our “energy independence”. I don’t recall him being very concerned about GHGs. I’m not sure I would use the term “unsubstantiated” here.

I never said the ozone hole had expanded recently. Are you claiming that Antarctic cooling is new?

BTW, you blew my cover. ;-)