Arctic ice thins dramatically

[gslack]

7-21-1979

7-21-1985

7-21-1991

7-21-1998

7-21-2007

7-19-2011

Anyways on yesterdays map it shows that the area north of Alaska more or less is about 2-3 weeks from melting totally. A narrow path away through the northwest passage could open up within the next week or so and the same is occurring with the northeast.

Hey why is the last picture representing this year a close up and the rest are not? Seriously look at it. Its a different distance than the others why is that? Because if it were to scale you could see its nearly the same ice coverage as a few of the previous years. Dude you are completely fooled by anything they claim aren't you... LOL you don't even check or question anything they say you just post it and think it makes you smart.. LOL

Tool, the ice coverage is up then down then up and down again and your pics show that. The last one being a close up really tells the tale here. Why didn't they keep them all the same range as far as close up or far away? Because to do that would allow for a half way discerning person yo see what they claim and what actually is happening is not the same... What a mindless drone..

 

[Bigfoot]

Even if the arctic ice does thin, I don't see the downside. If it thins to the point where we can rush in a hundred oil rigs it would be just fine with me.

 

[ScienceRocks]

7-21-1979

7-21-1985

7-21-1991

7-21-1998

7-21-2007

7-19-2011

Anyways on yesterdays map it shows that the area north of Alaska more or less is about 2-3 weeks from melting totally. A narrow path away through the northwest passage could open up within the next week or so and the same is occurring with the northeast.

Hey why is the last picture representing this year a close up and the rest are not? Seriously look at it. Its a different distance than the others why is that? Because if it were to scale you could see its nearly the same ice coverage as a few of the previous years. Dude you are completely fooled by anything they claim aren't you... LOL you don't even check or question anything they say you just post it and think it makes you smart.. LOL

Tool, the ice coverage is up then down then up and down again and your pics show that. The last one being a close up really tells the tale here. Why didn't they keep them all the same range as far as close up or far away? Because to do that would allow for a half way discerning person yo see what they claim and what actually is happening is not the same... What a mindless drone..

Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT. Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really fucking trust your people??? That used to be mine? I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics. They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.

I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed. Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?

Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Even if the arctic ice does thin, I don't see the downside. If it thins to the point where we can rush in a hundred oil rigs it would be just fine with me.

I agree---I hate cold weather and would like to see a warmer planet. You can park as many fucking oil rigs as you wish within the northern pole of this planet. I could care less.

 

[gslack]

7-21-1979

7-21-1985

7-21-1991

7-21-1998

7-21-2007

7-19-2011

Anyways on yesterdays map it shows that the area north of Alaska more or less is about 2-3 weeks from melting totally. A narrow path away through the northwest passage could open up within the next week or so and the same is occurring with the northeast.

Hey why is the last picture representing this year a close up and the rest are not? Seriously look at it. Its a different distance than the others why is that? Because if it were to scale you could see its nearly the same ice coverage as a few of the previous years. Dude you are completely fooled by anything they claim aren't you... LOL you don't even check or question anything they say you just post it and think it makes you smart.. LOL

Tool, the ice coverage is up then down then up and down again and your pics show that. The last one being a close up really tells the tale here. Why didn't they keep them all the same range as far as close up or far away? Because to do that would allow for a half way discerning person yo see what they claim and what actually is happening is not the same... What a mindless drone..

Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT. Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really fucking trust your people??? That used to be mine? I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics. They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.

I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed. Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?

Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...

OH BS, newer advances in imaging tech is a cop-out. That image is a close up and the rest are not. The last image is at least 2x zoomed and its plain as day. Why did they do that? Just look at the pics and see for yourself there is nothing in this ice coverage trend that is either a record or unprecedented. There are some areas with less and some with more just as there is on all of those images. To pretend its not is being obtuse..

Further I call HIM a tool because the way he treats people who disagree with his posting. He calls me a hell of a lot worse, so I give what I and others get from him...

The site had a lot of information on it, not all or even most of it can be so easily dismissed. Whether or not I agree with him or your side on this is besides the point. The point is until the IPCC and others start to take other considerations and factors into their assessments and reports/climate models their data and their finding or claims, including all of those groups who support and encourage them with misleading claims based on circumstantial and incomplete data, their data and their findings will continue to be suspect in the very least.

Now, if you agree there a lot more to solar activity and radiation and their effects on our climate, then you can at least see my concern over their incessant blaming of everything the climate does on more CO2. Its asinine and completely ignorant to pretend by limiting CO2 we can stop the climate from changing. It's just plain silly now, and many of the same scientists who claim the earth is warming from CO2, claimed that the earth was going to go into an Ice Age due to the same CO2... They were wrong then, and so far they have been wrong more than they have been right. Yet they are still called experts by the pro-agw lobby and YOU. Anyone who doesn't agree is either on the take or a nut. Olsocks even called a MIT professor a oil company shill just because he wouldn't sign on with the AGW crowd. Seriously? MIT? The preeminent Tech college in this country employ oil company shills.. Yeah right..

When I see what I think might be a duck, I check to see if it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck then if all is true, I call it a duck. Therefore if Chris posts, talks, and gives all the right cues (like mindlessly posting charts and data he doesn't even check for BS), or olsocks posts links to a Greenpeace site and try to pretend its fair and non-bias, or when he deliberately leaves off bits of information in a quote to give a wrong impression of what a scientist says, I can safely call them tools because they act like tools..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey why is the last picture representing this year a close up and the rest are not? Seriously look at it. Its a different distance than the others why is that? Because if it were to scale you could see its nearly the same ice coverage as a few of the previous years. Dude you are completely fooled by anything they claim aren't you... LOL you don't even check or question anything they say you just post it and think it makes you smart.. LOL

Tool, the ice coverage is up then down then up and down again and your pics show that. The last one being a close up really tells the tale here. Why didn't they keep them all the same range as far as close up or far away? Because to do that would allow for a half way discerning person yo see what they claim and what actually is happening is not the same... What a mindless drone..

Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT. Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really fucking trust your people??? That used to be mine? I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics. They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.

I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed. Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?

Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...

OH BS, newer advances in imaging tech is a cop-out. That image is a close up and the rest are not. The last image is at least 2x zoomed and its plain as day. Why did they do that? Just look at the pics and see for yourself there is nothing in this ice coverage trend that is either a record or unprecedented. There are some areas with less and some with more just as there is on all of those images. To pretend its not is being obtuse..

Further I call HIM a tool because the way he treats people who disagree with his posting. He calls me a hell of a lot worse, so I give what I and others get from him...

The site had a lot of information on it, not all or even most of it can be so easily dismissed. Whether or not I agree with him or your side on this is besides the point. The point is until the IPCC and others start to take other considerations and factors into their assessments and reports/climate models their data and their finding or claims, including all of those groups who support and encourage them with misleading claims based on circumstantial and incomplete data, their data and their findings will continue to be suspect in the very least.

Now, if you agree there a lot more to solar activity and radiation and their effects on our climate, then you can at least see my concern over their incessant blaming of everything the climate does on more CO2. Its asinine and completely ignorant to pretend by limiting CO2 we can stop the climate from changing. It's just plain silly now, and many of the same scientists who claim the earth is warming from CO2, claimed that the earth was going to go into an Ice Age due to the same CO2... They were wrong then, and so far they have been wrong more than they have been right. Yet they are still called experts by the pro-agw lobby and YOU. Anyone who doesn't agree is either on the take or a nut. Olsocks even called a MIT professor a oil company shill just because he wouldn't sign on with the AGW crowd. Seriously? MIT? The preeminent Tech college in this country employ oil company shills.. Yeah right..

When I see what I think might be a duck, I check to see if it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck then if all is true, I call it a duck. Therefore if Chris posts, talks, and gives all the right cues (like mindlessly posting charts and data he doesn't even check for BS), or olsocks posts links to a Greenpeace site and try to pretend its fair and non-bias, or when he deliberately leaves off bits of information in a quote to give a wrong impression of what a scientist says, I can safely call them tools because they act like tools..

I agree that the newer imagine is much closer, but you would think that the scientist or anyone that is serious about measuring the extent of the ice would understand this and have worked through the issue painfully to make sure it is accurate. What I think of science is that it is very much based on a ton of a math and accuracy and that means a lot to most scientist. A least I would hope so, but it would really be sad that even with a peer review system and other authors looking at this data that they wouldn't spot such issues.
There is also volume, which is at its lowest point ever in 2011 since 1979, which is a even better way to gage the ice. Ice extent as you say moves around and some years the ice is one place and the next it is another. Or it piles up. Volume is even more important.

I agree that a tool is someone that can't think through things and has to be a sheep for a group or political party. Me and you see face to face with the cycles and understand that the IPCC was way to simple about what they put out there for people and now the real skeptics are poking holes within what they put forward. They should of more or less said that co2 is a positive forcing within a complex system of cycles. They would of been right if they would of, but instead they tried to pull off the bs that solar cycles mean nothing. The 2000s bit them in the ass as one such cyclone occurred.

Now what I'm asking is why or how the past 5-6 years within such a grand minimum cycle are we holding steady and some are even arguing that we're increasing in global temperature. Me and you agree with the negative forcing as such cycle as this one 'puts on a period' as pointed out with that paper you posted, but something is amiss.

Truth is we supposed to be cooling right now...I'd say we should be as cold now after 5-6 years of a Dalton type grand minimum as the 1960s. We know it is NOT the sun or anything to do with TSI that=the warming. What I'm saying is the ipcc excluded the solar cycles and the natural cycles and got bit on the ass, but that doesn't mean that we can describe the warming or even the fact that we're not cooling. If not co2 what?

About them calling for a new ice age in 1970s to occur in the 2000's. Hell look at the grand minimum, we're in right now and you can understand why they did. They likely didn't think that the positive forcing was going to reverse the natural solar cycle was even possible at that time. Think about it for a second--- in 1880 the idea of plate tectonics wasn't know or what the brent floods were. Science advances every day and new theories are made to make more leaps of understanding. Hell a few years ago, I thought with this grand minimum that we were going to have at least .3-.4c of cooling within the next ten or so years. Remember the paper you posted a link to me and it had charts of these period and how they could be predicted. Maybe they were pointing toward them. There mistake was thinking that the natural cycles didn't matter anymore.

The truth is I believe in the natural cycles and they should be forcing a negative impact on global temperature right now. A real drop should be occurring. Hansen may of been right about the basic idea, but excluded one very important thing as you say.--->The natural cycles. Think about it for a moment with a open mind. I'm listening to your case too.

 

[gslack]

Newer satellite and advances in imaging tech??? Same goes for you my friend as me and you use the same data to make up our opinions. FUCKED UP OR NOT. Easterbrook pretty much used 1855 for his greenland graph to give people the lie that the past 9,000 years where warmer then today....What a joke. Can you really fucking trust your people??? That used to be mine? I understand that the temperature data is not to good and people that point that out are doing a service for the science for fighting to improve the data, but that data is the army that we're going to war with and it is all we have. Some of the skeptics have good science with questioning different things like clouds and co2 ability to warm the planet. Guess what they're the real skeptics. They question through science and use the science to show weakness within the offical thinking of global warming, but you just rage and call people tools.

I read your link and found it very interesting. I already seen eye to eye with you on the solar cycles and believe that we're in such a period now. If so then that explains why the warming has slowed. Do you honestly think that such negative forcing "if" there wasn't strong positive forcing(through co2) would look like a rise or even holding steady on a temperature chart. Honestly? John daily, the man that put that information together would point out in one of his graphs that shows the other such events and how temperature decreased greatly. 1670-1700, 1800-1820, 1880-1915, 2000-?

Oh, hell, I'm a raging believer in long term cycles and believe that the warmers are looking at it the wrong way. Co2 is only a piece of the puzzle. Not the whole thing. The question that should be asked is why in one of these "grand minimum" events is there no cooling...

OH BS, newer advances in imaging tech is a cop-out. That image is a close up and the rest are not. The last image is at least 2x zoomed and its plain as day. Why did they do that? Just look at the pics and see for yourself there is nothing in this ice coverage trend that is either a record or unprecedented. There are some areas with less and some with more just as there is on all of those images. To pretend its not is being obtuse..

Further I call HIM a tool because the way he treats people who disagree with his posting. He calls me a hell of a lot worse, so I give what I and others get from him...

The site had a lot of information on it, not all or even most of it can be so easily dismissed. Whether or not I agree with him or your side on this is besides the point. The point is until the IPCC and others start to take other considerations and factors into their assessments and reports/climate models their data and their finding or claims, including all of those groups who support and encourage them with misleading claims based on circumstantial and incomplete data, their data and their findings will continue to be suspect in the very least.

Now, if you agree there a lot more to solar activity and radiation and their effects on our climate, then you can at least see my concern over their incessant blaming of everything the climate does on more CO2. Its asinine and completely ignorant to pretend by limiting CO2 we can stop the climate from changing. It's just plain silly now, and many of the same scientists who claim the earth is warming from CO2, claimed that the earth was going to go into an Ice Age due to the same CO2... They were wrong then, and so far they have been wrong more than they have been right. Yet they are still called experts by the pro-agw lobby and YOU. Anyone who doesn't agree is either on the take or a nut. Olsocks even called a MIT professor a oil company shill just because he wouldn't sign on with the AGW crowd. Seriously? MIT? The preeminent Tech college in this country employ oil company shills.. Yeah right..

When I see what I think might be a duck, I check to see if it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck then if all is true, I call it a duck. Therefore if Chris posts, talks, and gives all the right cues (like mindlessly posting charts and data he doesn't even check for BS), or olsocks posts links to a Greenpeace site and try to pretend its fair and non-bias, or when he deliberately leaves off bits of information in a quote to give a wrong impression of what a scientist says, I can safely call them tools because they act like tools..

I agree that the newer imagine is much closer, but you would think that the scientist or anyone that is serious about measuring the extent of the ice would understand this and have worked through the issue painfully to make sure it is accurate. What I think of science is that it is very much based on a ton of a math and accuracy and that means a lot to most scientist. A least I would hope so, but it would really be sad that even with a peer review system and other authors looking at this data that they wouldn't spot such issues.
There is also volume, which is at its lowest point ever in 2011 since 1979, which is a even better way to gage the ice. Ice extent as you say moves around and some years the ice is one place and the next it is another. Or it piles up. Volume is even more important.

I agree that a tool is someone that can't think through things and has to be a sheep for a group or political party. Me and you see face to face with the cycles and understand that the IPCC was way to simple about what they put out there for people and now the real skeptics are poking holes within what they put forward. They should of more or less said that co2 is a positive forcing within a complex system of cycles. They would of been right if they would of, but instead they tried to pull off the bs that solar cycles mean nothing. The 2000s bit them in the ass as one such cyclone occurred.

Now what I'm asking is why or how the past 5-6 years within such a grand minimum cycle are we holding steady and some are even arguing that we're increasing in global temperature. Me and you agree with the negative forcing as such cycle as this one 'puts on a period' as pointed out with that paper you posted, but something is amiss.

Truth is we supposed to be cooling right now...I'd say we should be as cold now after 5-6 years of a Dalton type grand minimum as the 1960s. We know it is NOT the sun or anything to do with TSI that=the warming. What I'm saying is the ipcc excluded the solar cycles and the natural cycles and got bit on the ass, but that doesn't mean that we can describe the warming or even the fact that we're not cooling. If not co2 what?

About them calling for a new ice age in 1970s to occur in the 2000's. Hell look at the grand minimum, we're in right now and you can understand why they did. They likely didn't think that the positive forcing was going to reverse the natural solar cycle was even possible at that time. Think about it for a second--- in 1880 the idea of plate tectonics wasn't know or what the brent floods were. Science advances every day and new theories are made to make more leaps of understanding. Hell a few years ago, I thought with this grand minimum that we were going to have at least .3-.4c of cooling within the next ten or so years. Remember the paper you posted a link to me and it had charts of these period and how they could be predicted. Maybe they were pointing toward them. There mistake was thinking that the natural cycles didn't matter anymore.

The truth is I believe in the natural cycles and they should be forcing a negative impact on global temperature right now. A real drop should be occurring. Hansen may of been right about the basic idea, but excluded one very important thing as you say.--->The natural cycles. Think about it for a moment with a open mind. I'm listening to your case too.

Volume is usually more closely related to precipitation than temperature. My point is simple though... Looking at the maps or graphics there you can plainly see that there is nothing in them that there is no precedence for in the past even the recent past using just those graphics. In fact the last one is very similar to both 98 and 91.

Also why the years they chose? If it were indeed warming to the extent they claim they could and should have just done 10 year based pics on down the line, but they didn't. Hell they could a did every 5 years but again they didn't they instead went and pulled this one and that one. A warming as they claim should have been constant and almost even every july so it would have helped them to do it the way I said, but no... I know why, and so do you, they did this cause if they tried to post them all chronologically it would not show the extreme warming they wanted. So they cherry picked some graphics to better suit their goals.

This is standard PS PR work 101. I see this all the time in my work and its plain as day. Its called shinola and they have gotten better at it over the years.

*edit*

Just forgot your question sorry bout that.. Here goes again.... You are still trying to take one thing and use it as evidence. This is not so simple and I said this before. Please stop looking for the tree thats blocking your view of the forest...

 

[Chris]

 

[gslack]

Ya know why they always put a drastic color line at a down slope across the middle like that? SO even the most ignorant algorian can look and see if its supposed to represent a decline or incline without hurting themselves. That way they can at least pretend to know what they are talking about for a few minutes...

 

[Chris]

 

[Old Rocks]

The oceans are warming, and doing so very rapidly. The Woods Hole Institute is perhaps the world's premier ocean research institute, and here is what it has to say on this.

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[Old Rocks]

Ya know why they always put a drastic color line at a down slope across the middle like that? SO even the most ignorant algorian can look and see if its supposed to represent a decline or incline without hurting themselves. That way they can at least pretend to know what they are talking about for a few minutes...

Not for people that have some scientific knowledge. It is for dumb fucks like you that cannot even understand the simplist of graphs.

 

[gslack]

Ok chris I am tired and want to make this short...

#1 What exactly does the part in parenthesis mean? You know it says this above your chart. "(Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" What exactly does that mean in this context, I am not quite sure on that... Does it mean they only used areas where the ice was 15% of the area by volume of sea water or ice? or what? And if that is indeed what they mean, why not use the whole dam ice area? Wouldn't that be a better way to judge ice extent for the area? And if thats not what they meant please explain to me what in fact they do mean by that.

#2 The third line on the legend text represents 1979 - 2000 average correct? Ok so why did they only do the average to 2000? 10 years are missing and that seems a bit odd to me. I think a continued warming trend would be best represented by a full average up to 2010 if in fact there was drastic warming as they claim... Comparing 2011 ice coverage to 2007 and then comparing them both to an average between 1979 and 2000 while leaving out 9 years between the average and the two years separated by 3 more years between them is incomplete at best and I say a bit suspect...

#3 The part in the legend that says + or - 2 ... So if that is correct and their is a + - of 2 then by looking at 2007 and 2011 and keeping that + or Minus factor of 2 in mind we can safely say the two years separated by 3 years which we do not see represented here, are within the margin of error to make them nearly identical... Which begs the question how does this + or - factor into the 1979 to 2000 average? Was it taken with an assumption of a - 2 or a + 2? If it were a +2 than the average itself would be suspect as well.

You see chris that rather long winded and dull investigation of just the one chart you posted, told me some very basic truths. One; we have a error factor in it of + or -2 which given the fact there is no more than a difference factor of 2 in the years 2007 and 2011, we could very easily say there is no discernible difference in ice coverage between the two years, making the charts implications false in its pretense this years ice is less than 2007. Second, using and average of 21 years, and comparing it to 2 non-consecutive years themselves separated by no less than a total of 9 years after the end point of the average, is unsound scientifically and gives a false impression of the data. And I would say at least a bit dishonest if not by intent, in the very least by misrepresentation.

Dam I went and got all boring and dull again didn't I... LOL ok dude your chart sucks! There now you and olsocks can understand it...

 

[gslack]

Ya know why they always put a drastic color line at a down slope across the middle like that? SO even the most ignorant algorian can look and see if its supposed to represent a decline or incline without hurting themselves. That way they can at least pretend to know what they are talking about for a few minutes...

Not for people that have some scientific knowledge. It is for dumb fucks like you that cannot even understand the simplist of graphs.

Olesocks, I think on layers, levels and multiple dimensions and do so while maintaining a level of communication that allows even the most limited of minds like yours to at least grasp a concept here and there... LOL MENSA MAN!

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok chris I am tired and want to make this short...

#1 What exactly does the part in parenthesis mean? You know it says this above your chart. "(Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" What exactly does that mean in this context, I am not quite sure on that... Does it mean they only used areas where the ice was 15% of the area by volume of sea water or ice? or what? And if that is indeed what they mean, why not use the whole dam ice area? Wouldn't that be a better way to judge ice extent for the area? And if thats not what they meant please explain to me what in fact they do mean by that.

#2 The third line on the legend text represents 1979 - 2000 average correct? Ok so why did they only do the average to 2000? 10 years are missing and that seems a bit odd to me. I think a continued warming trend would be best represented by a full average up to 2010 if in fact there was drastic warming as they claim... Comparing 2011 ice coverage to 2007 and then comparing them both to an average between 1979 and 2000 while leaving out 9 years between the average and the two years separated by 3 more years between them is incomplete at best and I say a bit suspect...

#3 The part in the legend that says + or - 2 ... So if that is correct and their is a + - of 2 then by looking at 2007 and 2011 and keeping that + or Minus factor of 2 in mind we can safely say the two years separated by 3 years which we do not see represented here, are within the margin of error to make them nearly identical... Which begs the question how does this + or - factor into the 1979 to 2000 average? Was it taken with an assumption of a - 2 or a + 2? If it were a +2 than the average itself would be suspect as well.

You see chris that rather long winded and dull investigation of just the one chart you posted, told me some very basic truths. One; we have a error factor in it of + or -2 which given the fact there is no more than a difference factor of 2 in the years 2007 and 2011, we could very easily say there is no discernible difference in ice coverage between the two years, making the charts implications false in its pretense this years ice is less than 2007. Second, using and average of 21 years, and comparing it to 2 non-consecutive years themselves separated by no less than a total of 9 years after the end point of the average, is unsound scientifically and gives a false impression of the data. And I would say at least a bit dishonest if not by intent, in the very least by misrepresentation.

Dam I went and got all boring and dull again didn't I... LOL ok dude your chart sucks! There now you and olsocks can understand it...

Damn, the lack of comprehension displayed here is astounding. You didn't finish the third grade.

 

[Chris]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look just north of northeastern russia and you will see close to land that there is NO sea ICE. The northeast passage seems to have opened!!!

 

[HenryBHough]

Sadly there were no satellites to snap kodachromes of the sea ice a few thousand years ago. Ah, but wait, there were no people around to give a shit. Maybe we'll regain that balance in a few more mil.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sadly there were no satellites to snap kodachromes of the sea ice a few thousand years ago. Ah, but wait, there were no people around to give a shit. Maybe we'll regain that balance in a few more mil.

Within the HCO the suns "energy" was more directed at the poles, which is because the earths poles were pointed at more of a incline toward them. Today that is not the case and it is really weird why the same is occurring.

1#Energy is forced to go through more atmosphere, so more of a chance to be reflected before hitting the surface and 2# the solar "rays" are more spread out, so less energy hitting directly. Both these factors become less as the earth's axis incline is more directly pointed at the poles, which means direct solar energy towards the poles=more direct energy to melt the ice and to warm that part of the planet.

 

[Bigfoot]

Maybe Greenland will become green again. At one point in time they say that the north pole had about the same climate as present day Florida. Anyway if the ice is melting up there we should start drilling for oil which would help mankind more then the ice melting will hurt it. There isn't really a downside.