As for the last graph, on Arctic sea ice extent, looks to me like the current figure shows about 500,000 square kilometers less ice than average for this time of year, available to reflect solar radiation back into space – and correspondingly more open water, ready to absorb all that high sunlight over the next few months.

Please – anyone reading this: read all the crackpot cherry-picked analyses you want – but weigh them against the source studies! What do the NSIDC scientists themselves have to say?

(For one thing the NSIDC web-site points out that in addition to ice EXTENT being relatively low, ice THICKNESS is also much lower than average, meaning that future declines in extent per given amount of heating will be relatively rapid.)

Reply: Google translator says:

what matters is the trend (slope).
Scientists warn about the trend is higher than historical calculations.
So that means that you can understand the blue line falls more than you should.

~ charles the moderator

Anyone who has taken 2nd form (7th grade) maths knows that the slope of a line is independent of the y-offset, and that the vertical scale has no relationship to the sign of the slope.

I’m going to have to assume that group doesn’t include you.

You’ve taken a graph which has a NON-ZERO ORIGIN, and claim to have shown that there’s no statistically significant trend by WIDENING the graph.

To show the graph ACCURATELY, the ORIGIN should be at ZERO, … NOT 13.0

Here’s a test:
Make a bar graph of my wealth, which is $101, in column “A”; and your wealth, which is (hypothetically) $110 in column “B”. Is there much of a difference?
Now, plot the same bar graph, but set the ORIGIN of the graph to $100. Is there much of a difference now? Thought so.

The graph of Arctic Sea Ice Extent has the same problem — the ORIGIN is set at 8 (or maybe 7, it’s hard to tell). [hint: it oughtta be 0, ... zero, ... goose-egg, ... nada]

Neither of the original graphs you use is legitimate.

No one in the first bunch of comments I read even noticed this (I only skimmed the rest of the comments; so if some later comment already noted this, I apologize to that commenter)

Further, you present a WIDENED graph, and then claim that it shows (read “proves”) that there is no statistically significant trend. Where did you learn this fascinating technique?

A graph does NOT, and CANNOT prove statistical significance. But, you know what does? — STATISTICS!!

If you’ve done the statistical analysis of the DATA that went into making the graph, then perhaps you could present THAT to substantiate a claim of “no statistically significant trend”. However, based on your being duped by a phony graph, and then attempting to prove statistical significance via PhotoShop; I have serious doubts that you’ve done any statistical analysis of the raw data.

FYI, I’m no watermelon. I’m a full-fledged “denier”; but this is ridiculous.

You make the point that global warming causes greater climate instability. You’re arguing for global cooling sir. You need to understand some systematic basics.

In the climate system (and all other real world complex systems), the farther away from the normal equilibrium you get the more unstable the system becomes. AGW proponents base their argument of increasing climate instability on this well understood fact.

Systems theory clearly establishes that the further you are from the point of equilibrium, the more likely you are to encounter third, fourth, and higher order subsystems (feedbacks) that will become greater in force (sensitivity) than the instability and seek to regulate the system back to a state of equilibrium. In a system in equilibrium, the feedbacks are relatively insensitive and the system more stable. This principal is central to the high CO2 climate sensitivity argument of AGW proponents.

AGW proponents presume global warming must have pushed our climate system into a state where feedback sensitivities are very high. This presumption can be seen in current general circulation models. However, to accept such an assertion, one has to accept that our climate system is very unstable to begin with. Our climate system is very stable else our atmosphere would have vanished eons ago. We must observe that our climate system has been becoming progressively more unstable over a statistically meaningful timeframe. We observe the opposite.

What is not understood by AGW proponents is a warming climate does not become less stable, it becomes more stable. Or inversely, a colder climate is a climate of greater temperature extents. The paleoclimatic record clearly shows this. You can see this by looking at this graph:

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/research/glaciology/research/AbruptClimateChange.html

The AGW proponents who use this argument are actually arguing against global warming and know too little about complex system theory and paleoclimatic history to understand their folly.

I have to say that the evidence so far suggests i should sleep soundly tonight.

Indeed, but the point of my post is to illustrate that an exact sea level rise is difficult to deduce. Yes, land levels in Scandinavia are rising, but by exactly how much? Can we tell to the nearest few centimeters, which is the accuracy needed to deduce net sea level rises. I doubt it.

Other sea level datums also point towards either stable or lowering sea levels.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm

As far??
Stockholm is just down the road in comparison to the US!!! A US-centic view?

.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis-Hhhhhmmmmm

We have in fact seen significant warming in the Arctic air masses – I don’t think there are similar data loggers in the Antarctic, where the sea-ice is a fringe on a very large continent – and the main rises have been in late autumn, after the summer sea-ice reaches its minimum. This suggests a strong heat transfer from the ice-free Arctic seas to the atmosphere – and it creates a strong signal. However – it should be remembered that at these latitudes the region is in permanent heat deficit – losing heat to space. Thus, what the loggers of ‘anomalous’ air temperature easily forget to state is that this represents an accelerated LOSS of heat from the Arctic ocean. Thus, we can expect the Arctic sea temperatures to drop and for the next year’s ice to be thicker. The recent losses to 2007 were due to increased influx of warm Atlantic waters under the ice and increased cloud from a warm Pacific (until the PDO shifted) – there has been a phase-shift, and i would expect to see lower sea temperatures, more sea-ice, less cloud and eventually lower arctic surface air temperatures, which are known to shift on an approximate 70-year cycle, with many records set around 1940. If CO2 is having a significant effect, it cannot be greater than the difference between 1940 and 2007 temperatures, but the data sets are not so readily compared. When I looked at them, I thought the difference was about 20% – and of course, there are other factors in the ocean cycles that would make this an upper estimate.

Rare and not widely reported with connections to any other AGW fraud ignored. Like I said, the press will run interferance. A story followed only by you and me and the rest of us here, and we are the “deniers”. AGW is going to be difficult to knock down.

Usually the NSIDC updates are picked up on by media hounds within hours of it’s release and blasted over the media…

Oh well, I guess the media have their hands full trying to hype up the “early start to the fire season in California due to global warming” (San Bernadino fires) and covering the tornado in the South “Which could have been made more violent due to global warming”.

There’s no losing when every possible weather event is somehow tied into global warming. Weather is one of the most highly variable occurrences on this planet.