Behave yourselves.
I’ll be checking in from time to time and making reports from the road. Just remember that some comments with links might end up in the spam filter and may take some time before I notice them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Inquirer
You might find this interesting
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_3/poster_s3_096.pdf
Inquirer:
Give it a week and see what the chart looks like. It may be just an observational “burp” by the software.
I was just arguing with an AGW proponent on
http://www.solarcycle24.com
I had stated that the GISS record is crap and corrupted and there is a 5X divergecne in the GISS set from 1998 -2008 compared to others. Well the blogger Cthulhu generated this plot:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=34r96br&s=3
Which proved my point and shows the divergence of GISS temp set compared to all the others. He did a great job at looking a ten year period changes in temerature.
I congratulated him for weaning himself past the Tamino school of Cherry picking.
Pamela Gray, it has been my perception that skeptics generally have a better handle on the facts than alarmists, so I want to alert you that you may have an misconception of Northern Hemisphere ice. The current level is higher than last year, but likely NOT higher than for “many, many, many years. ” Pictures for 2004 and 2005 are not available, but it looks like 2003 had more ice at this point in time. It appears that we are higher than 2006 as well as 2007.
Can anybody point to me a graph of arctic ice that covers more than the last 12 months? This link has total global ice for 30 years: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
but I do not see any series for the arctic ice.
MattN may be right that it is a burp, and technical issues have arisen occasionally in the Cyrosphere service which they appear to be diligent to correct.
MEANWHILE, I have been around for almost sixty years, and I have never seen snow this far south in Minnesota at this time of the year. And it is not an insignificant amount of snow!
Actually my main point is that when looking at rate of ice melt, it would be best to compare apples with apples. Look through the record for the same ice extent and graph the rise and fall for each build-up and each melt season. Finally indicate the timing of known natural conditions (solar cycle, ocean cycle, tilt, orbit, etc) on the graph. After you do that, you should then be able to tell if the rate of ice melt for any one data set on your graph is melting at a faster rate than any other comparable set of data on your graph. You might also find some kind of cycle tied to natural conditions. If there are no differences between comparable data sets, then the variable conditions (IE anthropogenic sudden or slow increased pollution) would not appear to be influencing build-up and melt as much as stable cyclical conditions (ocean cycle, solar cycle, tilt, orbit, ozone, etc). If there are unaccounted for differences between comparable data sets, then I would be looking for a change in variable conditions, such as CO2.
Polar bears officially listed at threatened: http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_bears.html
The door has been kicked in….
hi
http://abribob1.net