Almost two-thirds of the planet is composed of hydrogen

A rare case of imprecise speech by you. By mass? Or are you talking water on the surface?
Also, Geonite is female, so we should refer to her as “gal” instead of “guy”.

I’m sure you are aware that not all schools of environmental studies are “equal”. There are some very good and very bad environmental studies programs in academia these days.

I sincerely hope I’m not replying to a crazy person. If so, I apologize.

I didn’t give you “quotes”, as you can see above. I provided actual charts, which deconstructed your claim. Look at them again. They’re charts. See?

For a guy who purports to have a degree in any kind of the sciences, and who then states…

“Where would the hydrogen for the fusion come from? While hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe it is incredibly scarce here on earth because our atmosphere can’t hold it.”

…displays a what appears to be some kind of disconnect. Almost two-thirds of the planet is composed of hydrogen. Hydrogen is easily available in any big city.
Deuterium, too.

Of course there are variations in the weather around the globe.

And as you correctly point out if there is such a thing as Global warming and climate change, few here would dispute that climate does change from tme to time, then local events lasting a few years mean little or nothing.

Again as you say Global warming may be measured year by year but if so why is it that on this basis that you propose the globe itself has been cooling for somewhere between eight and twelve years.

Or is cooling the new warming? Or is 365 days long enough? Please explain.

And yes Smokey I saw the sign but I couldn’t resist. On principle when tempted I always fall. More fun I find.

Kindest Regards

“Global warming is measured by taking the average ambient temperature around the globe over a 365 day period. That number is rising.”

Two errors in two sentences. The second is the critical error: global temperatures have not been rising for several years: click

However, CO2 continues its steady rise: click

That fact alone falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture. I know it’s hard to adjust one’s world view, but try. Because the fact is that four molecules of CO2 rattling around in 10,000 molecules of air can not contain enough energy to measurably warm those ten thousand other molecules. It is physically impossible.

Follow this site daily for a couple of months, and you will clearly see that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis can not be true. So why is it still around? The answer is money. Big money; over $5 billion this year alone to study “global warming.”

With tax money like that being shoveled around, corruption follows.

Looking at a localized area over a short period of time is not evidence of anything. Global warming and climate change are incredibly complex and diverse. It’s the sum of everything happening all over the globe that dictates global warming. A local anomaly driven by local occurrences is not significant. If polar caps throughout the entire north and south pole were thickening it would be significant.

Global warming is measured by taking the average ambient temperature around the globe over a 365 day period. That number is rising. Heavier snowfalls and colder winters in some places with warmer milder winters in other places is part of the global climate change that global warming is driving.

It’s been down at least a week or two.

The links to the graphs in the article fail obviously.

I can find maps for drift tracks but no current buoy data.

Is that what happens when WUWT links to “data that should not be seen”?
I had never seen a problem with it for the prior two years.

Does anyone know of another site with current buoy data?

Regards,
Bob

But it’s only window dressing, because it is still the same old “forcings”, “climate sensitivities”, and so on. No basic change in the “science” at all; just making sure everyone spells it properly I guess.

Nice to see Michael Mann for a change mentioned in an article that doesn’t have the word proxy in it. How about a paper about “climatology” as a proxy for Science, Dr Mann ?

He treats the brine included ice as a composite structure. The essay is authored by Dana Meckenzie; who is a writer from Santa Cruz CA.

The article mentions the severe artic ice meltback of 2007, and basically says no-one knows why.

Doesn’t say anything about winds blowing it all to someplace else.

“error to use just the bottom thicknesses”

He incorrectly applied the bouy’s relative measurement of the water to ice (bottom) interface as the thickness. Yeah.. that was the point of my posts.

The 2006C historical depths from your graphic indicate the ice will likely continue to grow until June.

That graphic also clearly shows that the ’08 minimum was thicker than the ’07 minimum and the Apr ’09 thickness is greater than ’08. It will be interesting to see if the growth returns to the ’06 levels. Obviously, the bouy’s drift keeps it from being a “clean” one-to-one comparison.

I agree with your analysis and interpretation – and it is nicely consistent with the CRREL results:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8902/2006cdepthcomp.png

The corresponding result for April 2007 is 300 cm, showing the large ice loss that melt season to 170 cm in 2008 and only a very partial recovery to 200 cm in 2009.

Crashex,

I take it we also agree that Steven was in error to use just the bottom thicknesses in the original article, and when he further insisted:

“All of the active buoys show increasing thickness across their period of record.”

he was incorrect.

In order for ice to go to 9m deep, it has to start at ZERO and build up thickness from there. If next summer follows the trend, and the fact that colder water is now flowing up there, the buildup will continue for years to come.

To assume that new ice will always completely melt during summer is a very bold prediction.

If new ice will always completely melt during summer, then the icecap minimum will never increase. However, last year, the icecap minimum did increase. My eyeball estimate from this graph is about 545000 sq. km. or about 2 Colorados.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

First year ice will always disappear if the temperature is high enough. Otherwise, a certain percentage will survive, as it did last year, to become 2 year ice.