Arctic ice thins dramatically

[gslack]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers fuck with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

07,18,2011,7155156

7/18/2011, -87,657

Here is for 2007
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92


I'm sorry-I may of writen outside of "my bolded" words.

Okay now I know you aren't just unaware or new to this... This was intentional and now we can see exactly what we are dealing with. So all of your nice guy BS was just that...

If you continue this kind of nonsense be prepared to be treated with respect befitting your actions..

Honestly, I sure as fuck didn't think I made a mistake, but I guess I did. I can treat you with the same, but I try to hold a higher standard with the hope for a honest debate of the data and the issue at hand as I'm not a extremist on either side of it. I wish the data would be looked at by each side honestly and we can make up our minds based on it without politics. FUCK politics.

As for that leader that you quoted---he is very much right as some within the science are going to hype the hell out of everything, but maybe that is to get people to 'look' as most people today can't get off there mother fucking ass for ten seconds or take anything seriously theses days. These guys understand this. Do I believe it hurts the science, hell yes!!! I'd rather them stick with the facts and leave the hyping the hell out of it. Do I think some of them are left wing idiots that went to use it for their own propose, you can bet your house on it. Do I believe that the data could be screwed with, YES! But each and every tiny bit of honest data shows a warming trend of some kind. I don't give a fuck if it is natural or man made, but I do know it is there. Do I went to shut down big oil, FUCK NO, Do I went to shut down big coal, fuck no---I'd rather the middle class and poor get cheap energy that is not taxed up the ass and those energy resources for this time are the best. I think cap and trade sucks ass! I would vote fuck no. It would hurt people.

Not all these people are dishonest or stupid. Even Spencer at UAH will admit to a warming of earth...In and fact his satellite data shows about what the giss, noaa does. What data base or temperature data set does the skeptics have? I don't believe any. Every honest fucking data set on gods earth will show it.

Gslack, if you believe my thinking is wrong then post up a data set that shows me other wise. Something within the past 20 years.

Matt you tell me honestly your intentions weren't dishonest I believe you. But your cavalier manner in your previous posts kinda gave a different impression. So fair enough you didn't do it to be dishonest so be it. But seriously do try and use the quote tags instead of writing inside peoples quoted posts. It really is confusing for people to follow, and it gives a false sense of a conversation.

To the point of twisted science, ANY alteration, wild claims, or exaggerated hypothesis in any scientific study makes the science from that study in the very least suspect and casts doubt on any further scientific study in that field especially by the same people. You cannot have scientific research using those tactics and any scientist worth his degree will say the same thing. It casts doubt on the science and the scientists who bring it.

A while ago science had the edge on religion. The edge was you could check their work and hypothesis and thereby giving them something religion could not do. You cannot ask to see God and heaven and come back to give witness to it and the ability to have your claims checked by peers. You can't video tape or have a team of scholars all confirm what happened in a meeting with the all mighty in heaven. But you can have those things in science. Unless the science starts to twist and exaggerate their findings, then they are nearly the same animal... And thats the problem with a little white lie in science.

 

[Chris]

 

[LoVE]

hmmm.. maybe I need to get my glasses renewed but looking at that chart it looks like there has been a slight change in Ice levels in the last 4 years.. but yet the op says that the change has been drastic... is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture.?

 

[ScienceRocks]

hmmm.. maybe I need to get my glasses renewed but looking at that chart it looks like there has been a slight change in Ice levels in the last 4 years.. but yet the op says that the change has been drastic... is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture.?

Seeing that it took millions of years from pretty much 29 to around 1.2 million years to get into the current ice age to interglacial cycle, I'd say it is pretty drastic. I believe during the 1900-1970's minimum was around 7.8 to around 9 million km^2. Today it is around 4.2(2007), 4.8(2010) up to around 5.8 million km^2.

See the first thing that occurred was the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets...Once this was in place it started to take up more and more "co2" into its self---lowering the earths co2 percentage within the Atmosphere, even more then the India sub continent slamming into the Asian continent. Many within science believe that is what finally cooled earth down from 14-17c warmer then today to around 5-7c around 30 million years ago. What is a feed back, a sample idea of it is 1# indian sub continent slamming into asian continent; a feed back of such is of course the antarctic ice sheet developing and the lowering of the sst's or better known as the ocean temperatures. This made the oceans more able to take in co2, which lowers the percentage even more. This keeps going until you get greenland and other ice sheets shooting out of earth's backside.

The changes within earth's rotation and orbit are small, so up until a few millions of years ago those huge assed glacial that cover all of Canada and northern America, Europe couldn't happen.

 

[LoVE]

well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.

CO2 has to be near 5000 ppm to be detrimental to human life.. right now it is something like 300 to 350 ppm.. I would say we are safe

 

[RollingThunder]

well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned(sic) with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster(sic) unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.

CO2 has to be near 5000 ppm to be detrimental to human life.. right now it is something like 300 to 350 ppm.. I would say we are safe

Just more clueless denier cult drivel and ignorant nonsense from another brainwashed dupe.

 

[skookerasbil]

well I for one am real glad those glaciers that covered north america have melted. do you realize how hard it is to grow food in ice,, ??? and another thing I could give a rats behind what the earth was like 29 million years ago, I am more conceerned(sic) with fearmongering voodoo science that says we are headed for a global disasster(sic) unless we spend 10 trillion dollars of American money to combat something that is neither a proven fact nor a concrete possibility,, all we have is an unproven theory.

CO2 has to be near 5000 ppm to be detrimental to human life.. right now it is something like 300 to 350 ppm.. I would say we are safe

Just more clueless denier cult drivel and ignorant nonsense from another brainwashed dupe.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[Old Rocks]

This shows the melt even better. Interesting, there appears to be a bit of detachment of the ice pack from Northern Greenland.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

 

[Moving to USA]

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..

Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.

 

[Moving to USA]

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..

Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.

Glad you pointed that out
Did you also know that Mt St Helens lowered the earths temperature after it erupted? so since we agree that man/cars are worse offenders than volcanoes, it stands to reason that if not for the cars we would be much hotter right now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..

Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.

Glad you pointed that out
Did you also know that Mt St Helens lowered the earths temperature after it erupted? so since we agree that man/cars are worse offenders than volcanoes, it stands to reason that if not for the cars we would be much hotter right now.

"Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space."

How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects

Yes, but only for a very short time about -.1c. As Sulfur stays in the Atmosphere for only weeks or maybe months.

The main gases that composite type volcanos spew are mostly "cooling" or negative forcing gas into the Atmosphere. As stated within the article above. Cars, planes, trains and heating or cooling your house produces co2, which warms the planet.

In no if there was no cars we would be cooling right now as the tsi(solar output) has been slowly in a down slope since 1950. Hell the last decade should of cooled a few tenth of a degree C with the longest and deepest solar minimum since 1908-1912 or even the first cycle of the Dalton.


Now solar to temperature...Solar doesn't equal temperature after 1970, while before it nearly did.

But it is explainable by co2!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Japan tsunami shifts earth on its axis; island moved

Natural things like this certainly could have no effect on the caps... Mt St Helens could not have had any part either, even though is spewed more CO2 than all of the cars since the first one was started.. Cant be any explanation other than the dinosaurs had cars during the last big melt.. No way could any of this be a cycle of any sort.. Nope, if only we all still rode horses,, Oh wait, they expel methane, I saw it on Seinfeld, cant have horses..

Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.

Glad you pointed that out
Did you also know that Mt St Helens lowered the earths temperature after it erupted? so since we agree that man/cars are worse offenders than volcanoes, it stands to reason that if not for the cars we would be much hotter right now.

No, St. Helens had minimal effect on the Earth's temperature. Very little sulphates in the ash from St. Helens, unlike Pinatubo.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The attachment is my attempt at showing the missing 4-5 years. black line...Which is below all models.

 

[gslack]

Most in geology would disagree with mount st.helenes producing more co2 then all the cars ever. Let alone all the volcano within a single year.

"Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."


"Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates."

"On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions"

"Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."

Volcanic CO2 | Open Mind

Time to start looking at science and the realities instead of saying things that aren't true.

Glad you pointed that out
Did you also know that Mt St Helens lowered the earths temperature after it erupted? so since we agree that man/cars are worse offenders than volcanoes, it stands to reason that if not for the cars we would be much hotter right now.

No, St. Helens had minimal effect on the Earth's temperature. Very little sulphates in the ash from St. Helens, unlike Pinatubo.

Way to use douchebag science their tool.. what exactly does "minimal" mean here in this context? Are we talking "minimal" as in the earths temperature warming just 1.9 degrees in the last few hundred years? Or do we mean "minimal" as in oldsocks is a tool who is a google scientist who has no idea what he's actually talking about.. "minimal" LOL What a ridiculous cop-out..

 

[HenryBHough]

Revisionist history, of The Algore School of thought, refuses to recognize that there was any history before FDR. Hence the cyclic nature of Earth's climate is unknown to theml. We can take heart, however, in that if they were forcibly made aware of it their heads would explode.

 

[RollingThunder]

Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.


Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice it as its lowest extent for this time of early July. The melting season for Arctic ice continues until the end of August.
July 9, 2011
(excerpt)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says sea ice in the Arctic ocean is retreating at a record pace. It's currently at it's lowest extent for early July. Previous, July 2007 was the lowest extent before this year. Back in 2007 by the end of the melting season, the melting of the Arctic sea ice was the most in recorded history. That year lost more ice in one year than in the past 28 years combined according to the NSIDC.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Revisionist history, of The Algore School of thought, refuses to recognize that there was any history before FDR. Hence the cyclic nature of Earth's climate is unknown to theml. We can take heart, however, in that if they were forcibly made aware of it their heads would explode.

I'm a huge believer in the cycles that make up the warm and cool periods. Solar is the number one short term and medium term cycle maker.

HenryBHough, co2 is just a positive within a process that has many positive and negative forcing. If you have zero forcing of either positive or negative you get a stable climate, but if one of the many processes turn strong enough positive or negative then you get climate to warm or cool. The sun is number one! Mid evil, little ice age, modern warm period. My question is why the solar tsi and temperature has for the first time in 8,000 years has diverged outside of volcano's, meteor impact or some other short term process(nao, pdo, amo, enso, ect)? The whole debate within the past 30 years is what is causing the positive forcing. We know it is not likely the sun because it peaked in 1955. I have to tell every global warming believer that this is also a natural cycle and because they think it is totally all co2. Truth is co2 is just a piece of the puzzle.

I know all about cycles and what they do, but just believe that co2 is variable z.

 

[gslack]

Things are looking rather grim for the stability of the Arctic regions. The ice is melting and the dark ocean is absorbing far more of the sun's energy than the reflective ice cover ever could so a feedback cycle of increased warming is gaining speed. This year may well see minimum ice cover reach record levels, either rivaling or possibly exceeding the previous record low 2007 levels.


Arctic sea ice at lowest extent on record for early July

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice it as its lowest extent for this time of early July. The melting season for Arctic ice continues until the end of August.
July 9, 2011
(excerpt)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says sea ice in the Arctic ocean is retreating at a record pace. It's currently at it's lowest extent for early July. Previous, July 2007 was the lowest extent before this year. Back in 2007 by the end of the melting season, the melting of the Arctic sea ice was the most in recorded history. That year lost more ice in one year than in the past 28 years combined according to the NSIDC.

Yes, yes... And things are looking rather grim for your stability as well it would seem.. According to anyone who reads your posts your grey matter is reducing its cell count leading to more hot air coming from you on global warming...