Watts Wrong With That

[lazarus]

Climate change disbelievers.........


Edit.

There are no "climate change disbelievers" on this board or anywhere else. They are a figment of your imagination. There are people who are sceptical about the role attributed to CO2 in affecting climate.


Address yourself to this and your posts will stand a chance of remaining uncut.

[marchesarosa]

Want to know about global sea ice, folks?

Look here
wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

You will find many different sources of sea ice data

[havelock]

Sept 8, 2010 10:43:56 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

You will find many different sources of sea ice data

I couldn't see anything that referred to sea ice thickness in your link.

This site might be more informative

nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

e.g. "Sea ice thickness likewise showed substantial decline in the latter half of the 20th century (Rothrock et al. 1999). Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft (the ice extending below the water surface) at the end of the melt season in the Arctic decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s."

It too has lots of pictures/graphs for those that prefer to take in their information that way.

[lazarus]

Arctic Sea Ice is still dropping;
www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png

The National Snow and Ice Data Center state that extent dropped to 4.76 million square kilometers as of the 9th Sept — which is below the majority of expert predictions;

www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august

Hmm... I wonder if human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet and polar amplification is accelerating that process in the Arctic?

Probably not. I'm sure Steve Goddard is right and we can expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice. You bet ya.

[rsmith7]

Sea temp pentland firth (58 Degrees N) - 8/9/2010 - 12.5C
Sea temp pentland firth (58 Degrees N) - 8/9/1970 - 12.6C

Actual readings.

Of course the ice in the Arctic have no bearing on the above or vice versa

Rollocks

[rsmith7]

Double figures! Yeee Ha
Sorry, no links. Data taken from current reading and old diary of my fathers.

[marchesarosa]

Since no-one on this board has ever made any predictions about Arctic Ice what are you blathering about?

Someone stuck his neck out on WUWT? So what? Why don't you go and take the matter up with them? They don't mind warmists commenting.

No-one I know denies that the Arctic sea ice has decreased since satellite measurements began in 1979 or that some places are warming a bit. They might point to a different trend in the Antarctic, however. We know the southern hemisphere is very different from ours.

Hardly possible to speak of anything "global" at all regarding sea ice, or any other variable, actually. The two hemispheres seriously part company.

Have a look here for recent variations in the Arctic sea ice documented
thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31

One thing is for sure, it was not co2-induced "global warming" that "caused" our Northern Hemisphere freeze up last winter or the current Southern hemisphere freeze up. No way does GHG "warming" cause RECORD cold spells across whole hemispheres. Not by any stretch of imagination. When you can dream up the physical explanation for a little extra CO2 causing cooling let us know. Because when a single "forcing" - CO2 - is claimed to cause everything - hot, cold, wet, dry, drought, flood. - it actually accounts for nothing.

And remember CO2 is supposed to be increasing in a linear fashion. Our temperature oscillates. Even Phil Jones acknowledged the oscillating temperatures rises over the recent cycles are similar in rate. There is nothing out of the ordinary in the current warming. Why shouldn't the planet warm slightly? It warms and cools all the time according to the ice core records.

Remember the Newspeak Climate Dictionary? "AGW cannot be disproved therefore it is "science". Is it?

[marchesarosa]

"Why do people crow over inaccuracies in 'official' sources?"

Because they are supposed to be the basis for global policymaking. WUWT is not yet a source for policy-makers is it?

So long as the IPCC keeps coming up with egregious errors they will not be taken seriously and neither will their little footsoldiers like you, kiteman.


And if you think China and India are going to fall in with your little global fantasy, think again.

[lazarus]

Sept 10, 2010 0:06:26 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

Since no-one on this board has ever made any predictions about Arctic Ice what are you blathering about?

It you actually read the post and click on the links - that's point to it using the little arrow and press the left button on that thing with a tail in your hand - you will find one with a graph of all the predictions made by groups of climate scientists - all lower that Goddard hoped for - but most of them have now been shown to be too conservative.