Earth gives us an Earth Day present: Arctic sea ice is highest for this date in 8 years

This is a non-issue and no victory but I understand why you have posted it.
You are giving the finger pointers more things to point at.
I wish good science was good enough.

Earth Day – Lenin’s Birthday – which tells us something of what this is all about.
I am not sure Trotsky would have “picked” the Ice Story as a birthday present for him though.

The sun back to quiet times and the Nina coming back. Bad forecast for next november’s carnal pleasures climate jamboree.

Earth Day!, green policies, fight against natural polution, at the cost of changing it to lost of freedom, end of democracy and welcoming a brave new world government. Bravo!, what a big deal: Political pollution in exchange of natural pollution.

Cloud10
“I am not sure Trotsky would have “picked” the Ice Story as a birthday present for him though.”
Oh, very droll!

“Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter”
So a 75 day 1,500,000 square kilometer average 9 year record low in 2007 means something significant in the history of the planet but a 21 day 2,000,000 square kilometer 9 year record high in 2010 is not-significant.
A three year down tend for 2004 to 2007 (net loss about 1,200,000 square kilometers) means something significant in the history of the planet but a 2 year upward trend for 2007 – 2009 (net gain of 1,200,000 square kilometers, (same as the loss but in less time)) is not-significant.
Cherry picking is where people take a small amount of data from 2007 and use a 10 year old 30 year average that fits their argument, use it like it means something significant.

Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate
Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action in Canada for publishing ‘grossly irresponsible falsehoods’
One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says “poison” the debate on global warming.
In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.

Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate
Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action in Canada for publishing ‘grossly irresponsible falsehoods’
One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says “poison” the debate on global warming.
In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/22/climate-change-libel-action-canada-national-post

Happy Earth Day everybody!
Don’t forget to let your kids watch the SpongeBob SquarePants Earth Day Special tonight!
http://www.nick.com/games/spongebob-squarepants-spongebobs-jellyfishin-mission.html

But, but, doesn’t this mean that all that water locked up at the poles is depriving some desert tribe in N. Africa of badly needed water? Must you rub it in? Have you no heart? 😉

Scott (11:16:03) :
I thought the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2008
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

OSLO, Feb. 29 (Xinhua) — The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

As it turns out I have a couple of “trees” in my back yard; which are just not putting out enough Oxygen to earn their keep, and I also have a very nice and noisy Chain saw. So when I get home tonight, I am going to slaughter those two trees in the interest of some dendrochronology. And then I am going to whack them up pretty good, so nobody is going to accuse me of Nyquist Violations on this exercise.
I can’t think of a better way to celebrate. Well I am wearing my Green Frog Hair Hat today; it’s the frog that’s green, not the hat. Well actually the frog is green and yellow.
Speaking of yellow, my new Physical Chemistry book has a problem question asking how many yellow photons a 100 Watt lamp emits in 1 second at 100% efficiency. Well they said yellow; but the wavelength they give is 560 nm ;which isn’t yellow in any color chart I’ve ever seen; it’s a pretty ordinary grellow; but I would look more at 580-585 if I was looking for a yellow photon. I guess some academics never do go out into the real world. The “yellow” part of the visible spectrum, is the narrowest in terms of the range of wavelengths that the eye perceives as a particular color; no more than 5 nm wide. between grellow and amber.

“One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit…”
“…lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.”
“…including prominent climate-sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/22/climate-change-libel-action-canada-national-post

Sorry. I do not believe this without a tree ring to confirm it.

Happy Earth Day!
Mr. Bastardi is a bit puzzled about the Ice:
“So all this ice is surprising because THERE SHOULD BE LESS, NOT MORE, using natural drivers as the prime reason for the expansion and contraction of the northern ice sheets”
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Mr. Bastardi is allways a good read – Ciao!

How long before we are told that the increase in Arctic ice _proves_ anthropogenic global warming and it was forecast in the AGW models?

I posted this on a different thread, but might be of interest here:
From IJIS http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm:
“The black dot seen at the North Pole is an area lacking data where AMSR-E cannot observe the Earth’s surface… Please note that this area is also counted as sea-ice cover in our estimation of sea-ice extent. We may change the policy (i.e., filling the gap with full coverage of sea ice) in the near future due to the recent drastic reduction of Arctic sea ice. We will announce this if it is implemented.”
I just noticed this comment and am not sure if it’s a recent change or not. Suspicious if it is.

Scott Covert (10:58:56) : “This is a non-issue and no victory but I understand why you have posted it.”
I think we could guarantee that it would be a ‘huge’ issue and a ‘victory’ if the ice was anywhere near a nine-year low. Such news would be heralded by the MSM.

Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
There isn’t any way he can win this suit, the models simply aren’t provable and therefore the claims are hearsay and thus accurate.
He must be out of his mind or likes throwing away money.

LOL – make that “and thus inaccurate.”

Thats good news, I guess, at leas for the people who worry alot abot polar bears, rising sea etc. If it wasnt for the internet and blogs like this excellent blog, I would never have known, this is truly a democrcy revolution, Al Gore’s internet invention.
Swedish media refuses to publish storys like this, pubclic service media, (swedish bbc)-SVT is on a huge drive for climate alarmism, they are building up for something, I do not know what.
http://svt.se/2.108068/1.1955993/forkrossande_majoritet_enig_om_klimatforandringarna
My translation “Devastating majority in agreement of Climate change.
Over 97 of swedish scientists working in the field of climate research agree that man is proven to be responsible for the global warming.”
This according to a poll they made that is so ridiculous that I am ashamed to describe it. It also says 90% has faith in the IPCC.
http://svt.se/2.108068/1.1966830/marginellt_vetenskapligt_stod_for_klimatskeptiker?lid=puff_1966993&lpos=lasmer
Then they make another “study”. “Scientific support of climate scepticism is poor”.
Only five (5) of 8000 climate research related articles, peer reviewed 2009-2010 support scepticism of man causing the global warming. They have contacted an expert, Naomi Oreskes who helped them analyse their findings.
–
The troublesome thing here is that the SVT is very prestisious and well regarded for its neutrality in (other) political agendas and reports like this, in national newscasts, really make an impact on people who do not actively seek information elsewhere.
–
Sorry didnt mean to start ranting about it, bu I want you guys in other countries to look out, because the conspiracyguy in me is telling me something is staged.
Why this massiva campaigne?
–
Other than that, the weather is nice, bit cold but beatiful sunshine.

It should say “over 97%” above, darn.

” John from CA (12:16:23) :
Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
There isn’t any way he can win this suit,”
I don’t think he can win against the newspaper but he might be able to win libel suits against some hotblooded commenters. This together with Dr.Mann’s legal fight against M4GW indicates that a new phase has begun. AGW money can finance a lot of lawsuits. Keep your tongue in check everyone.

it’s not the arctic, it’s california…but there is normaly NO ice this time of year.

DirkH (12:50:38)
“Keep your tongue in check everyone.”
I disagree.
All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
So do something. Do not go quietly into the night.

Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?
I don’t know, something seems missing without such “Enjoy it now, you’ll be crying later!” posts. Gives a skeptic like me a warm fuzzy feeling and puts a nice smile on my face. Anyone else get that?

And on this Earth Day, it is snowing in Prescott Arizona!
Too bad CO2 isn’t pushing up the temps more, I could sure use more warmth this weekend …

amazing, given CSMonitor is generally pro CAGW:
(six pages)20 April: Christian Science Monitor: Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming
Voluntary carbon offsets are a ‘Wild West’ market ripe for fraud, exaggeration, and poorly run projects that probably do little to ease global warming
An investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found that individuals and businesses who are feeding a $700 million global market in offsets are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect.
They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms…
Mr. Skar, of Greenpeace, says the industry is rife with financial speculators in flannel shirts: “Carbon cowboys. People from the most bizarre backgrounds. People who have no prior interest in the environment.”..
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming/(page)/3

The most reliable (live update) is DMI, its actually showing an INCREASE once again. If this goes on for say another month and ice seems to be THICKER according to CT we may have a NORMAL minimum. What a disaster.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

When you take a careful look at the 1979 sea-ice area around april 21 you will still find a lot larger ice area than there is now . So from a certain point of view 1979 was an excellent starting year and has not been beaten the last 30 years , so next year only may start to demonstrate new records , but then katla could be blamed and our agw enthousiasts will again stipulate that the trend has not been broken and this is only an incident hiding the general accelerated warming of the atmosphere , so much spoilt by all deniers and other revisionistic and cosmopolitic scam . Comrades let us sing the internationale !

“geoff pohanka (11:35:55) :
Not only is there more Arctic ice today than in past years, the ice is also thicker.
Thicker ice melts more slowly.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=18&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=18&sy=2010”
Is ‘thickness’ usually synonynous with ‘concentration’ here? These maps show a more purplish colour when the ice is more concentrated, but is the ice actually thicker? R Gates has said recently that the ice this year is a lot thinner than other years and that is a cause of concern for him. I suppose it is possible that the ice can be more concentrated but also be thinner, but I’m actually a little confused about these two terms. Is there data available which shows ice thickness as opposed to concentration?
Anyone help out?
R Gates?

whoops, picture did not come through…
It’s not the Arctic, it’s California. But there is normally NO ice here this time of year…
REPLY: just put the URL in for the picture, don’t use tags

What on earth has happened to the SUN? It was supposed to have kicked into the 24th cycle over two years ago, but here it is still doing practically nothing! Folks, I’m getting worried.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/

Earth Day 1970 predicted a coming ice age. Maybe that’s why the Arctic is refreezing now.
Strange how Earth Day coincides with Lenin’s birthday,

“pat (13:15:50) :
[…]
Mr. Skar, of Greenpeace, says the industry is rife with financial speculators in flannel shirts: “Carbon cowboys. People from the most bizarre backgrounds. People who have no prior interest in the environment.”.
”
Greenpeace has to say this – they run certification schemes so it’s THEIR market and they need to exclude any competition.

I’m sure it doesn’t count because it’s rotten ice. ;->

“Andrew30 (13:06:05) :
DirkH (12:50:38)
“Keep your tongue in check everyone.”
I disagree.
All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing”
Let me put it this way: Express yourselves in a way that makes it impossible to sue you. Clearer now?

RockyRoad (13:37:28) : wrote
“What on earth has happened to the SUN? It was supposed to have kicked into the 24th cycle over two years ago, but here it is still doing practically nothing! Folks, I’m getting worried.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/
I’m not worried, but Al Gore sure is. Next winter season is going to be a dozy.

nsid’s web site is down because thay have turned it off and they’re all down at the pub drowning their sorrows trying to work out what went wrong with their predictions

Steve Goddard writes via email: [snip]
Selecting parts of a personal email and arguing it online is not appropriate. ~dbs, mod.

Ben Kellett (13:57:55) :
4, Please, please don’t go down the line yet again of pointing out that our record is so brief that we don’t really know what “normal” actually is. Agreed, yes we don’t know for sure but we do have comparisons from the last 30 years, so let’s use what we’ve got. It’s simply a cop out to dismiss all records on the basis that we’ve not had them long enough.
++++
Alas, while we have 30 years of data, NSIDC insists on using 22 yrs worth. They know they should use 30 years for calculation of the base-line if it were only a matter of science making the decision. They’ve said so, publicly. But they don’t, because if they did it would create “confusion” (again, their word) when the baseline was suddenly lower and current conditions more often exceeded it. Musn’t muddy their alarmist message to the public, seems to be the “confusion” they are afraid of. Surely it can’t be Gavin and Pielke, Jr who would be “confused”.

The comments are getting kinda silly now. Really, we still have the May-June “crunch” to go through. And look at 2 to 3 months ago, didn’t make a big deal out of that.

Maybe if I’m right about 2010 minimum, they’ll finally switch to 1981-2010 for 2011. Ending with 2007 and 2008 probably is part of the sour taste in their mouth about doing it given how 2009 went, and 2010 is going so far (even by their own admission, tho carefully blamed on the AO).

“Ben Kellett (13:57:55) :
Come on folks! Quit crowing so much. Let’s put of context behind all of this”
May I remind you that the warmaholics have forecast that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer in the near future. I have seen dates between 2013 and 2030. Ban Ki Moon visited the Arctic last summer to emphasise how real the danger was of an ice free summer in the near future. He got to about 81 degrees of latitude before the ice was so thick they could get no further in the Norwegian ice breaker.
So what is important to me is to illustrate how unlikely it is that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in summer in the near future. Never mind what “normal” is.

Communists, socialist warmists playing the age old game of quietly those who oppose their views by “threat” in this case of financial harm. I hope they try to sue someone or company with some spine and dollars, discoveries would certainly be newsworthy. I hope someone takes up a collection jar if needed as i certainly would pay the price of admission to that show.

What isthe expected impact of the iceland volcano on the arctic ice? If it starts falling-out on the arctic sea ice, won’t this increase melting?

Phil. (12:25:05) :
“To be accurate about it Arctic sea ice extent is high compared with the last 9 years. The sea ice area is not nor was its maximum late. Taken together these facts indicate spreading of the sea ice more than normal. I consider that interesting, similar to what happened in summer 07.”
You need to look at a proper data-source Phil, before putting your foot in it!
If you go to the Arctic-ROOS site here…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
…you will find that both area and extent are dead-on the 1979 to 2006 average!
You must realise that the amount of Arctic sea-ice is the result of the many climate processes dependant on deterministic chaos, so each year is an independent event, with only a slight ‘memory’ from multi-year ice effecting it. Trends are meaningless when trying to forecast sea-ice area and extent.

Sea ice extent is indeed looking great, considering how low it has been, still not above the longer term average, but very close. And now to rain on your Earth Day parade, but what really matters with the arctic sea ice is volume, and that’s not really done anything but go down for many many years. See:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
For this reason, and a few others, I’m still projecting that our summer low will be less than 2008 or 2009, but not quite as low as 2007. The big bump up in sea ice we saw in March and early April was primarily focused on the Bering Sea, and that was very thin ice that is melting fast, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
But Happy Earth day!

DirkH (14:47:47) :
Today’s take of yesterdays data as compared to 2003-9:
04,21,2010,13673125
04,21,2009,13527656
04,21,2008,13169219
04,21,2007,12942813
04,21,2006,12962656
04,21,2005,13119375
04,21,2004,12745938
04,21,2003,13392188
If you wait about 6 hours, todays data will be in, and it will be today until tomorrow arrives tomorrow, at which time todays data will be yesterdays data tomorrow.
Happy Earth Day 🙂

I burned about an even ton of underbrush this morning that I cut & gathered over the preceding week. I burned a ton the week before and will be doing the same each week for about the next month. All that stored sunshine going to waste! Deadfall from amongst the big trees I eventually cut up into fireplace size chunks and get some use out of it. It’s all carbon neutral though so the green police should have no complaints either way.

… and if the models have yet to be perfected, what basis was there for all the claims of Global disaster and to conclude the need for a Carbon Tax related to unproven theory?
In a court of law, isn’t something that’s not proven or experienced firsthand considered “hearsay” and typically dismissed from the record?
The discovery phase of the suits is likely to require proof of AGW which would cause far more harm then all the skeptics have?

As every year you guys are there!
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
Congratulations!

RockyRoad (13:37:28) :
What on earth has happened to the SUN? It was supposed to have kicked into the 24th cycle over two years ago, but here it is still doing practically nothing! Folks, I’m getting worried.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has a graph comparing Cycle 24 to Cycle 5 (1798) so far the first third of the two cycles are tracking if you compare the sunspots counted by “similar equipment” http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

Jimbo, that link is awesome! But if Andrew Weaver is so prominent… then how come I’ve never heard of him??? 🙂
Oh, and this whole ice cap thing is sooo last year. Today it’s all about Ocean Acidification. I asked a few questions, raised some points about this on my blog.
Signed
Mike… er, I mean Joe @ sonicfrog.

http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
@Blackswhitewash
Yes. This is back to 1972. Look at how much higher the average is. 1972-1978 must have much greater seaice coverage. And that was with just 1 weak solar cycle. We’re getting 2 weak cycles now, so expect ice to even higher than any time in the 70’s by 2030.

Thanks for the link, Gail Combs (15:54:08). I’m feeling better about Cycle 24 already!

Mike Haseler (15:55:52) :
But, Mike, I wasn’t arguing that 30 years was “enough”. I was arguing that 22 years *isn’t*, particularly when you have 31 available to you.
Also that NSIDC has already acknowledged that 30 would be better than 22 from a science perspective, so I shouldn’t have to make that argument to them at all –they’ve said it themselves. Yet here we are arguing over their self-acknowledged worse-than-they-have-available-to-them 22 year standard.

“Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.”
The El Nino blip of the first 1/4 of this year doesn’t matter.

Scott Covert (10:58:56) :
“This is a non-issue…”
I don’t follow you. It is one of the primary issues in global warming. There are only 4 years left to Al Gore’s prediction that the North Pole could be ice free because of global warming.
It is the primary issue that global warming predictions are already failing. So, it follows then that their 50 and 100 year predictions are worthless.
Everyone must be informed that global warming predictions are worthless.
Shouldn’t they? Don’t you want Cap N Trade stopped? Don’t you want the “Village of the Damned” look in some teenagers and childrens faces to be to be changed into a smile of relief because we are not headed to a litany of disasters?
Please don’t say this in a non-issue.

Mike Haseler (11:15:55) :
Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate
Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action
————————————————————
Apparently his climate modellor livelihood is being threatened.
Does he see himself holding a sign saying “Will model for food” in his future?

Who is this “Earth” you speak of?

DirkH (12:50:38) :
“” John from CA (12:16:23) :
Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
There isn’t any way he can win this suit,”
I don’t think he can win against the newspaper but he might be able to win libel suits against some hotblooded commenters. This together with Dr.Mann’s legal fight against M4GW indicates that a new phase has begun. AGW money can finance a lot of lawsuits. Keep your tongue in check everyone.”
——————————————————————————
If they can’t beat a newspaper why would they go after a comment on a blog??
Imagine the news report,” Scientists sues commenter on the internet. The same scientists lost a suit against a newspaper and a tv station but he won in a separate suit over a comment on a blog.”
You think we would see this story in the news?

R Gates, your Arctic microclimate graphs (IE Bering Strait) demonstrate not melting so much as wind pushing, piling, and pulling ice here and there. You can easily correlate and predict what the extent and area graphs will say the next day by closely following wind data. Plus volume, in my opinion, is determined by pile-up, not by age (research Great Lakes ice volume for example).
I have been following the Arctic wind patterns over the past several years. Last year and this, wind patterns predicted pile ups. Which leads to very thick, interconnected twisted piles of ice that don’t break apart and melt very quickly. I predict, in opposite to your prediction, that we will continue to see summer ice recovery from its 07 low. Not because anything is warmer or colder, but because the ice is kinda in a constipated impacted condition. And there is no enema in sight. Unless the AO turns strongly positive.

Anu (14:31:37) :
Steve Goddard writes via email: [snip]
Selecting parts of a personal email and arguing it online is not appropriate. ~dbs, mod.
Personal email ?
It was all from this very article, above.
See the section where the article says “He [Steve Goddard] writes via email:”
Anyway, it was all tongue-in-cheek for Earth Day.
Cheers.

kadaka (13:07:31) :
Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?
Hey, you remembered “eggshell”, “September” and “a decade”, pretty good.
Not quite how I used them though:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/28/skating-on-the-other-side-of-the-ice/#comment-355191

Might as well breath normally until October – that’s when they determine if a new record summer melt has occurred:
…
And you might as well get used to waiting – the Arctic probably won’t be ice free in the summer for another decade:
…
Professor Wadhams said: “The change is happening so fast. It’s the result of this steady thinning over four decades that has brought it to a state where its summer melt is causing it to disappear.
“It’s like the Arctic is covered with an egg shell and the egg shell has been thinning to the point where it is now just cracking completely.”

Did you forget the “thinning” part ?
I don’t know, something seems missing without such “Enjoy it now, you’ll be crying later!” posts. Gives a skeptic like me a warm fuzzy feeling and puts a nice smile on my face. Anyone else get that?
Sure, enjoy your 2D extent data now.
I would be too, if I didn’t know about this:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

R. Gates (15:24:22) :
Happy about Earth Day? This reveals more about you than your comments. You in the closet. Why not just come on out. Are you a member of Greenpeace? Or some other extreme environmental organization?

Charles Wilson, step away from the midnight onion, pickle and mustard midnight sandwich with an icecream sundae chaser. Your nightmare generator is in overdrive.

Anu (20:18:12) :
Isn’t it convenient for you to chose 1980 as a starting point when the ‘coming ice age’ scare was ending? The earth started warming naturally in 1980 causing the trend in the graph you presented.
You can ALWAYS be counted on to cherry pick.
But I can tell you don’t really know what you are talking about.
.
BTW, how did you celebrate Lenin’s birthday today? Did you break a few eggs to make an omelet?

The believers/trolls are sounding more desperate all the time. Maybe it’s part of that Monboit “fight back” thingy.

Phil really gave it away this time. re no Ajax and CT now..hahaha

Re: Anu (20:18:12)
Close, but not it. I was thinking about this more recent post for the eggshell part.

Well, I can’t speak for the CAGW groupies ( http://tinyurl.com/yemj8dj ) but personally, it would be fun if the summer melt ended up below 2009 levels – I enjoy hearing all the “spin” as to why the Arctic losing its summer ice soon is “natural”:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090908_Figure2.png
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090804_Figure2.png
If I have to wait till 2011 or 2012, not so fun.
Look at that 2008 sea ice extent dive, starting within the “gray area” – things can happen fast in a warm Arctic… and CryoSat-2 will be watching the whole time. I wonder what happens when “the warmest oceans on record” flow up under the Arctic egg-shell-thin sea ice cap.
We’ll see by October.

Then after you got beat up despite going into your “tetherball” reply mode, you switched over to arguing about all that heat being stored deep in the oceans that has Trenberth in a lather, getting in “the last word” on April 18, while for the WUWT post from April 16 (two days earlier) “NCAR’s missing heat – they could not find it any-where,” where the whole Trenberth thing where he complained about the “missing heat” was discussed and debunked, you were a complete no-show.
Yup, still arguing about all that great and terrible ocean heating while two days earlier everyone else was reading about Trenberth moaning how he doesn’t believe any of the many estimates of ocean heat content are correct, and he knows that missing heat must be somewhere.
Oh, and he also said in the press release mentioned: “Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.” And look here, the Arctic sea ice seems to be doing rather well. Well he still has those melting glaciers, that are sublimating in dry winds and getting covered in sunlight-absorbing soot. And the sea levels, whose rate of rise has dramatically slowed down. So I guess his case is still as sound as it ever was.
Thank you for showing up for this post. Wouldn’t be the same without you. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day!

Anu (23:27:37) :
You did cherry pick the time frame. Was there less Arctic ice during the Medieval Warm Period? How much was there in the 1930’s when the earth was in a warm period? How much was there in the late 1940’s when the earth was cooling? You don’t talk about any other time frame but the last 30 years.
There were very few scientist talking about co2 back then. But I notice you didn’t provide any links to what you say to prove what you say. You could watch The Great Global Warming Swindle to see that there really was only one that was noticed talking about co2 back then.
BTW, I am not replying to you thinking that you are listening to anything I am saying. I know you won’t. I know you are a hardcore radical. You don’t want the science. You don’t care about the science. You misuse science. You care about things other than the science, and other than the truth. You have an agenda.
I am only writing these things for others who may be reading so they can see more than just the propaganda of your side of the issue.

Anu (23:27:37) :
But I can tell you don’t really know what you are talking about.
Why, did you get a third tier sciencey degree so you think you’re qualified to talk about science ?
No. It doesn’t take that much to figure you out.

kadaka (23:16:57) :
Anu is a no show in some threads. But not in this one about Arctic Ice. Arctic Ice is one of global warmings sacred babies. They have to do all they can to make it look like global warming is making Arctic Ice disappear—despite what reality says. They have to tell people to not look at what is really happening but look at what their ‘scientists’ say about Arctic ice, and what their predictions from computers say about it.
And it seems the more they talk the more they feel they are winning the debate.

Anu (23:27:37) :
Your graph is an anomaly graph. Looking at the actual difference in volume (something you didn’t point out) it shows very little volume was lost. But your graph makes it look like a lot. All volume lost was due to natural variations. Arctic Ice does not stay at the same size. Sometimes it increases through time. Sometimes it decreases.
Maybe you can enlarge that graph and then get Al Gore to ride his lift up to the top of it and scare little children.

Who is Andrew J Weaver?
He is an AGW fanatic, and has been for a long time.
He works from the University of Victoria, and this is what they say about themselves:
“The University of Victoria is a leading Canadian research university, and has a reputation as a centre of innovative and interdisciplinary research. UVic researchers are making major contributions, advancing and applying knowledge for the benefit of society. UVic faculty rank among the top universities in Canada in research funding from national granting councils.”
_____________________________________________________
RESEARCH PROPOSALS SUBMITTED AND UNDER REVIEW
2009 Water Security and Community Solutions Network
Letter of Intent submitted to the Network of Centres of Excellence program of the Government of Canada on February 26, 2009.
Network Co-Directors: Andrew Weaver and Rosemary Ommer, The University of Victoria
Co-Applicants: The Directors of Six Regional Nodes including Ralph Matthews as Director of the Node for Western Canada.
The proposed network will focus on the relationship between climate change and water related issues (including fresh water, oceans, and sea ice) as they affect the security and human well-being of communities throughout Canada, as well as those industries (e.g. Hydro Eclectic; Fishing; Forestry; Agriculture; Tourism: Shipping; Vintners) whose economic well-being is also affected by water related issues). The NCE is intended to link science and social science with communities and industries. The approach taken will be largely ‘bottom up’, in that social and economic researchers, working with communities and industries, will identify the critical current and future water related needs and impacts that affect social and economic well-being. Working from the perspectives of these needs and the relevant social and impacts, scientific research will undertake efforts to identify potential solutions that involve both mitigation and adaptation to changing environmental conditions.
Amount of Funding to be Requested: In accordance with NCE guidelines, available funding will be on the scale of $3,000,000.00 per year for five years, potentially renewable after review for an additional five years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…As can be seen, a great deal of money and reputations are at stake if the whole “global warming” fraud collapses, and these people have to find some real work of value to do instead of getting paid to spread their alarmist lying propaganda around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is Andrew J Weaver’s contribution to AGW, and the links from his web page to various other institutions:
Andrew J Weaver http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences
University of Victoria
Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences Building
3800 Finnerty Road (Ring Road)
PO Box 3065 STN CSC
Victoria, BC, V8W 3V6, Canada
Tel: (250) 472-4006; Fax: (250) 472-4004;
I can be reached by email through Wanda Lewis at wlewis@uvic.ca
Book: “Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World”
Available online for CDN$15.20
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Keeping-Our-Cool-Andrew-Weaver/9780143168256-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527Keeping+our+cool%2527
Product Description:
“Monster wildfires in Australia, January golfers in PEI, ruined fruit crops in California, starving polar bears in the North. Climate change is no longer a vague threat. Over the next few centuries climate changes will be greater and occur faster than at any time in 10,000 years. Brilliantly researched, Keeping Our Cool is an engaging examination of global warming, with specific emphasis on Canada. Weaver explains the levels of greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize the climate and offers solutions and a path toward a sustainable future.”
Climate Modelling Group
http://wikyonos.seos.uvic.ca/climate-lab.html
Journal of Climate http://jclim.rutgers.edu/
“The Journal of Climate publishes articles on climate research and, therefore, welcomes manuscripts concerned with large-scale variability of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface; changes in the climate system (including those caused by human activities); and climate simulation and prediction. Papers on the physics, dynamics, and chemistry of the atmosphere of the earth and other planets, with emphasis on the quantitative and deductive aspects of the subject, should be sent to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences; papers that pertain to weather analysis and prediction and observed and modeled circulations, including techniques development and model validation for both atmosphere and oceans, should be directed to the Monthly Weather Review ; those that are applications oriented (e.g., environmental health, weather modification, air pollution meteorology, hydrology, and agricultural and forest meteorology) and those that are applied climatology research related to the use of climate information in decision making, impact assessments, seasonal climate forecast applications and verification, climate risk and vulnerability, development of climate monitoring tools, urban and local climates, and climate as it relates to the environment and society, should be directed to the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology; those dealing with forecasting techniques and forecasting verification, including mesoscale and synoptic-scale case studies that have direct applicability to forecasting, should be directed to Weather and Forecasting; research emphasizing instrumentation or techniques for acquiring or interpreting data should be sent to the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.”
PUblications 1987-2010
http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/weaver-publications.html
Victoria Weather Station
http://www.victoriaweather.ca/
“The UVic School-Based Weather Station Network is made up of stations mounted on schools in and around Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. We have recently expanded the network to include schools in Lake Cowichan, Qualicum and Parksville (see also http://www.nanaimoweather.ca). Data collected at each station are gathered in a central database here at UVic. See About the Network http://www.victoriaweather.ca/about.php for more details and contact information.
We are funded by NSERC PromoScience in partnership with British Columbia School Districts 61 (Victoria), 62 (Sooke), 63 (Saanich), 64 (Gulf Islands), 68 (Nanaimo), 69 (Qualicum), 70 (Alberni), 79 (Cowichan Valley) and AChannel Victoria.”

Anu’s tactic to tackle skeptic is similar to the sort that classical physicist uses to attack quantum mechanic and relativity, as he rely on the use of absurdity by comparing our theory to “Alien devices in the ocean trenches”, as if when something is absurd it ought to be wrong.
One can see this type of methodology in science is quite problematic as the concept of absurdity is quite arbitrary, Aristotle will find Newton mechanic absurd, and so will Newton find Einstein’s. This reason behind this is simply because one will find any theory that does not bare resemblance to what they used to believe absurd, regardless whether their new or old theory is right or not.
I believe in order to establish whether a theory is correct or wrong, we should stick to the matter of fact, and honestly recount what we have seen regardless of how absurd it is. I believe as all the member of the climate skeptic understand that whether the world is continuing to warm or not are not part of our concern. What we are arguing as always is whether carbon dioxide we emitted have anything to do with it. And as the matter of fact shows in Medieval Warming Period and in Mini ice age there is a great change of temperature, more extreme to what we have experience nowadays, despites there is extremely little carbon emition done by human in that period. All this simply show carbon dioxide have little to no correlation to a sudden change of temperature. If you attempt to dispute this fact and still say carbon dioxide causes this change. Then you are basically saying the same thing as Alien device as ocean trench, which is not absurd, but simply not valid.
I have no scientific qualification in university, I am just a undergraduate doing philosophy. But if you want to argue with me about methodology of science I shall not be fear to accept the challenge. As you don’t seems to me to have any type of scientific qualification, as the quality of the post you wrote does not show it, nor you have any common understand of how science actually work, and how to make a sound argument.
(Apology for my poor English, Chinese is my first language. I must admit even people in Mainland China will make better trolling post then the climate alarmist)

This graph illustrates my point above
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

Anu (23:27:37) :
Apparently, PIOMAS is a model that hindcasts Ice Volume prior to 2003 by extending the TREND LINE as measured by 2003-2007.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/IceVolAnomaly19792010.MarNov2.png
as the caption implies:
“Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly from PIOMAS and the NASA ICESat satellite in November for each year relative to the 2003-2007 mean ice volume. ICEsat Ice volume is from Kwok et al. 2009. ”
And the graph you give above:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
is the PIOMAS Model output.
Ah, nothing like a Computer Model of an Anomaly to really scare the hide off the uninitiated.
Resistance is Futile, You will be Assimilated:
“The purpose of this page is to visualize recent variations of total Arctic Sea Ice Volume in the context of longer term variability. Arctic Sea Ice Volume is an important indicator of climate change because it accounts for variations in sea ice thickness as well as sea ice extent. Total Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are limited in space or time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models, currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuing basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons with observations help test our understanding of sea ice conditions in the Arctic.
”
It’s that Captain Dorothy Janeway that did it. Threw a tub of hot water at the Wicked Borg Ice Queen of the North and missed, hitting the Sea Ice instead.

Jim Radig (18:57:41) :
Re Pembina –Thanks, that’s appreciated. The bird is not yet in hand, so I’d like to keep your plan in play. Please drop me a line at geo[at]georule.net so I can contact you if necessary.

E.M.Smith (08:22:11) :
Gee… with this “unprecedented” rate of ice growth, we must be at the tipping point into a new Ice age. The albedo will be racing downhill as this ice accumulates. It’s an unstoppable trend!! We’re all doomed I say, doomed!
/sarcoff>
Or maybe we do need to start spinning things as doom. Seems to always work…
_______________________________________________________________________________
You could try the spin on the US Congress critters. They have certainly proved to be susceptible to spin…. or is that bribes? I keep forgetting

stevengoddard said:
On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
—————
All very interesting Steve…and if it continues over say, 5 or 10 years, might even be important. More importantly is this dowward trend in sea ice volume:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
That has occured over the past 30+ years. Volume is a far better indicator of the state of the cryosphere than simple extent…but of course, you know that.

Meanwhile the lunatics have taken over the asylum
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/23/cochabamba-climate-court

kadaka (23:16:57) :
See, don’t citations make the discussion more precise ?
If this summer’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent is less than 2009, it might still be only the 3rd smallest for this decade, hence your statement:
kadaka (13:07:31) :
Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?
didn’t apply to the post you cited.
But thanks for clearing up what you were talking about.
where the whole Trenberth thing where he complained about the “missing heat” was discussed and debunked, you were a complete no-show.
Yeah, sorry I can’t join in on every single thread at WUWT. I have limited free time. But I have talked about ocean heat content at length on some threads here, for instance this Comment and several after:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/noaa-says-warmest-march-on-record/#comment-370593
And for the record, I hope Dr. Trenberth’s arguments for getting funding for additional climate observing instruments are successful. Things like Argo are still in the beginning stages…

MiniB,
Wind, currents, air temp, water temp, and salinity are all factors. Tons of great info on this all over the net…

geo (10:05:41) :
“PIOMAS is a hindcasting model based on five years of ICESat data, attempting to determine with that and the NSIDC extent data what volume was in the past.”
I had a look at this too – I love it when numerical model results are presented as “data”!
Hold it – what’s this???
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/icevol_nao.gif
Oh No!! It looks like the numerical model hindcasted low ice volume in 1948! Need to fix the code…

Frank K. (10:35:41) :
Niiiiice. I wonder how long until we can expect their thousand-year reconstruction at PIOMAS, showing that arctic ice was also greater during the so-called MWP?
From what I can see, they don’t seem to be showing error bars on their graph. I could be wrong, but the bars they have look like sigmas to me. I wonder if they even have a stab at what the error bars would be with a 5-year calibration?

Amino Acids in Meteorites (00:47:09) :
Anu (23:27:37) :
Your graph is an anomaly graph.
You mean this one, from the Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington ?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Yes, I was tipped off by the Title: Arctic Ice Volume Anomaly and Trend from PIOMAS
Looking at the actual difference in volume (something you didn’t point out) it shows very little volume was lost. But your graph makes it look like a lot.
Feel free to read the graph without my “pointing out” what it shows.
But since you brought it up, let’s look at “actual difference in volume”. In 1979, the graph shows an anomaly of +5 thousand cubic kilometers of sea ice. 5000 km^3 is equal to an area of 5,000,000 km^2 with ice 1 meter thick.
Now look at the summer of 2009: an anomaly of about -8 thousand cubic kilometers.
Total anomaly swing in 30 years: a loss of 13,000 km^3.
How much sea ice area is there at the summer minimums these days ? About 4 million km^2:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
So, 4 million km^2 would have to lose 3.25 meters of ice thickness to equal that volume of ice loss.
And how thick is sea ice ?
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/index.html
First year ice is about 0.3 to 1 meter thick. Multiyear ice is typically 2 to 4 meters thick.
Not much ice left to lose at this rate.
All volume lost was due to natural variations. Arctic Ice does not stay at the same size. Sometimes it increases through time. Sometimes it decreases.
Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.
Maybe you can enlarge that graph and then get Al Gore to ride his lift up to the top of it and scare little children.
Were you scared during that scene ?

Anu (11:49:43) :
“Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.”
Idiotic response. Firstly what he meant by nature is factor that is not attributed by human activity. You either misunderstood him or just purely fainting stupid.
Even if you prove that what he say is a tautology, it still does not imply that losing ice are due to human activity. All you done is to show he is not saying any matter of fact in the reality, as in this sense it imply both human and non human or both causes losing ice.
The Logical form is∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx), which means for all object that consist the predict of human activity OR not human activity it implies it is a nature process.
However the idiocy of you reveal itself here, as you try to suggests his tautology automatic implies losing ice are in fact primary due to human activity. Which the logical form of your argument will be:
∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx)
And ∀x(Lx→Nx) (For all lose of ice it implies a natural event)
And your conclusion is
L”z”→H”z”
And this reasoning is entirely force, as there is a possible scenario that the conclusion can be L”z” → ~H”z” , from the two previous proposition made by you. Whether the proposition is true or not I do not want to comment here, you can look at my previous post. But all I can say is that your logical reasoning is rally faulty and certainly does not fit to perform any scientific research. Though I must admit your way of reasoning are more simaler to a troll, as all you do are ad hom attack. “OMG he made a tautology he must be a freaking idiot!!!!” Seriously if this is all you climate alarmist does in your so call so call argument, I can assure you that you need to improve your logical reasoning before you argue in anywhere, and stop recommending people to read more science book etc as I can be quite sure that you either read none or lack to logical capability to analyze what it means anyway.

Feuillet (03:05:34) :
Thanks for your amusing Comment. And it’s refreshing to see such honesty on these threads:
I have no scientific qualification in university, I am just a undergraduate doing philosophy.
I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu” (the Sumerian sky-god, who helped start Uruk, the very first city).
When Einstein predicted that the gravity of stars would bend light, and it was observed (during a solar eclipse), this is science in action. Saying “so what, light bending around stars is natural” is irrelevance in action.

rbateman (04:27:47) :
Anu (23:27:37) :
Apparently, PIOMAS is a model that hindcasts Ice Volume prior to 2003 by extending the TREND LINE as measured by 2003-2007.
Nope, apparently not.
“Hindcast” is when they take known starting conditions, then run a model to “predict” future developments – then compare these predictions to known results that have already occurred. It is a technique for checking how well a model is matching measured reality.
And “extending the trend line” is a weak “prediction” method, suitable for undergraduates guessing summer sea ice extent:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/12_KaleschkeHalfmann_JulyReport_JuneData.pdf
The Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) is neither:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/model.html
(although they probably tested the model with some hindcasts).
And navy submarine, mooring, and field measurements are not “guesses”. They are precise data that just don’t have the full coverage of satellites – hence the desire to relaunch CryoSat (since the first one crashed). By the way, ICESat gave data until October 2009 – I’m sure the data will show up in some PIOMAS graph soon.
The Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington is not the only group interested in sea ice age and thickness:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
I assume you are looking forward to the coming years of CryoSat-2 data proving that everything is just fine in the Arctic.

From Anu (13:25:05) :
Competent skeptics like Dr. Lindzen should be working on explanations of why the planet is warming.
But Hansen agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. Trenberth mentioned in a press release “…Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years.” Thus if we don’t have warming worth worrying about right now, what’s the point in taking a lot of time finding explanations for the warming (besides the PDO and a host of other explanations that certain people apparently don’t notice)?
We have better things to do, like as was done with this authoritative mathematical model outlining the proper response to a certain plague that could devastate humanity quickly. This is clearly a much better use of scientific efforts, as we humans cannot afford to be ill-prepared should such a plague strike. This could suddenly take out humanity now, without warning as soon as it pops up, as opposed to theoretical damages from something that is not currently statistically happening that will really only do noticeable significant damage several decades from now.
Really, people need to have better priorities in life. Worry about what could hurt us now, suddenly, find those solutions now, and stop worrying about things we likely won’t even notice any large effects from for generations until we get those important things taken care of first. Priorities, people, priorities!

Anu (13:05:55) :
“I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation”
Now here is the devil in the detail. In my first post I have argue that “I believe in order to establish whether a theory is correct or wrong, we should stick to the matter of fact, and honestly recount what we have seen regardless of how absurd it is.”
What this means is, if we don’t know something, we do not pretend to know it. This is as simple as a child being asked about how many T shirt are there inside his drawer, if he does not know it he should not randomly toss out a number. A lot of people, both side in the debate, believe that a good scientist must give up a explanation to the any natural phenomenon, regardless of whether they know explanation is proved to be valid or not. As if one need to support AGW if solar activity theory are proven to be false, or vice versa, regardless of whether the new replacement theory will be as crap as the previous one.
Anu is exactly one of these people, who try to argue that just because we don’t give a explanation we are “bad scientist” and hence we ought to choose AGW for the sake of having a explanation. I have already argue why AGW is not a good explanation in the first post, which I shall not repeat here. Whether or not other replacement theory such as solar activity can replace it’s importance is a another question, but whatever the answer is it will not change the fact AGW is still a crap one. All I can declare is, WE KNOW NO EXPLANATION AND LETS START PRETEND WE DO AND TOSSES A NEW ONE.
Now to be just I also need to say the people in the skeptic side does this as well. It is simply not needed. If a theory have it’s failure to predict, it is falsified already, without having to do anymore things. Galileo disproved Aristotle’s theory of mechanic without giving a new explanation of gravity as Newton did, but no one in his time, and now, ever doubt he ever disproved Aristotle’s theory.
Just as a last word to Anu, he also said “I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu””
I am sorry, your incompetence in logic have do you no good again, both proposition are not logical equivalence. The former one is a tautology, it is a statement that give us absolutely nothing and made no attempt to do so. Yet the latter one is a Synthetic statement, it attempt to give us knowledge of the reality, it is just fail to do so. The former statement is like saying “you will either win or not win this gamble”, duh! it is always true and give no advice to any gambler. Whereas the latter statement is like saying “you will win all gamble if you slap yourself in the face”. This is a advice to a gambler, some one can actually base on this in their decision,but is just wrong.
Both statement will probably do no one good when they try to use it to predict. But their logical nature is entirely different and please do not mix them together. IN FACT PLEASE DON’T USE ANY LOGICAL LANGUAGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

Actually, we DO know that the Arctic was Ice-free for thousands of years
(in Summer only, the 6-month Polar Night will always form sea-ice in winter) as waves were forming Beaches on the North Greenland Coast, then Stopped, about 5000 years ago:
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago.
The Ewing-Donner Ice Age theory calculated weather Patterns for an Ice-Free Pole, & came up with Much more precipitation, a green Sahara, a dry Kansas — a PBS History Mystery highlighted the uninhabitable nature of Kansas & Nebraska up until 5000 BP and this confirms Donner’s Weather calculations: BUT the Pattern clearly is the POST-Ice Age Climate of the Hipsithermal.
— I speculate that it is an OPEN POLAR SEA that causes the 3-to-5 degree C Global uptick that ENDS an Ice Age. Not Start one. But Ewing had calculated an Ice Sheet is only possible with INCREASED precipitation and had “heard” the Sahara was Green in the “past” … but DURING Ice Ages the Sahara is dry.
But their Weather Forecast seems good IF the Arctic does Melt off.
Part II:
…. the Arctic is NOT about AGW vs. Natural Warming — Both total only 1/4.
Arctic Warming is nostly “CAT”- Warming according to the team led by Drew Shindell early in 2009.
CAT = CAP & TRADE:
26% — General Global Average increase
29% — Sulphur Dioxide Decrease from SO2’s CAP & TRADE
45% — Soot leaving little black Sun-absorbing Dots on formerly-white Ice
— = Diesel Soot (forgiven by Kyoto’s CAP & TRADE as it cuts CO2)
+ Asian Coal Soot (forgiven by CAP & TRADE as it is not Evil Western Soot)
This is not REALLY “Environmentalists Killing the Earth” — it is a Lobby I call the PPG’s:
Political Phony Greens = POISONS & PARTICULATES GROUP = PPG.
Trying to get revenge on the industries exempted from the initial Pollution Controls, they have demonized CO2 & Sulphur and now FORCE us to put MERCURY in our homes, send Industires to Asia where all electricity will be Coal with NO scrubbers, etc.
Look at where the leading AGW Scientists stand:
Condemn CAP & TRADE :
Hansen, Lovelock, Dr. Ozone — all 3 of the top 3 !
… they call it a “SCAM” alleging a Crime — unlike Ethanol, which is counter-productive but we only found that out recently: a mistake, not a KNOWING CRIME.
Advocate Emergency Sulfur cooling:
Lovelock, Dr. Ozone (Paul Crutzen), the President’s own GW Advisor ( ! )
(PS the PPG sites still quote Ken Caldiera as worrying about SO2, to counter Crutzen BUT like Crutzen, he has SWITCHED SIDES. As Dr. Ozone says: Mt. Pinutubo proved Safety AND efficacy (PS: Plus the latest designs cost only $20 million because they add ONLY the 1/500th of the Volcanic SO2 that was above 20 miles)– to which I’d add that CO2 growth after Pinutubo was a fifth the normal 2 ppm/year, because Plants prefer the diffuse light a little Sulfur high up gives. Hate CO2 ? — then for every TON of SO2 reduced, put 4 pounds, 20 miles high = cut CO2 growth 80%. Or why not 5 pounds & cut it all ???
… Hansen — I do not know where he stands on SO2 — but as a bonus, he has stated the evidence favors those claiming “BC” warms more than CO2. BC = SOOT (dubbed “Evil BLACK CARBON” or “BC” by the career people at the EPA who really care).
— Mind : Hansen STILL wants to stop CO2, in fact he condemns CAP & TRADE because Kyoto INCREASES CO2.
In fairness to Obama, USA-made Diesels are made to cut soot by 93% , since the 1995 regs, so a U.S. CAT would not be as counterproductive as Kyoto has been.
PSSS There is a great Report that analyzes SOOT in Ice & I feel their numbers explain the 1922 near ice-melt-off because the SOOT (BC) was so much MORE back before 1920, than now. 1900-1920 saw ENORMOUS soot deposits in the Arctic, until home heat first switched to smokeless Anthracite after WWI, then oil & gas. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12140.figures-only
Nothing Warms like changing Bright White reflective Ice, to Polka dots.
Except changing to white Ice to “deep blue Sea”.

Good News!
As the Arctic Ice Death Spiral continues, we may finally be able to locate the Baychimo.
Thus there is one more, albeit relatively minor, benefit of the Inevitable Global Warming.
You may now resume your natural WUWT experience.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) (10:51:20) :
stevengoddard (08:52:51) :
so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).
If they had that Spinal Tap stereo they could go up to 11.