Warmest March on record

[RollingThunder]

Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from. And they all say opposite of what you posted.

No they don't but I guess you're not competent to grasp that. Chris was right - the graph is the real data and nothing you can find from the NSDIC, NOAA or NASA contradicts the fact that Arctic ice has been and still is declining, the sea ice is thinner, and the Arctic permafrost is thawing and melting.

Here's what the NSIDC actually has to say:

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

Even the NSIDC admits the sea ice is breaking up much later then they have records for.

LOL. "Much later"??? LOLOLOLOL. From the NSIDC: "Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999."

And so what? "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March"

"Late-season growth spurt

The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions."

"Ice age and thickness

The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.

Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."

And please stop the juvenile use of expletives...they truly are not needed and only serve to weaken your argument.

They may not be absolutely needed, waspwalleyed, but they sure do feel good. Getting to abuse and insult you idiotic denier cultists and your politically motivated dogmas is one of the best things about this lightly moderated forum. No worries about "weakening" the scientific 'argument' as it is founded on hard evidence and is completely unshakable anyway no matter what names I choose to call you retarded denier douche-bags.

 

[gslack]

Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from. And they all say opposite of what you posted.

No they don't but I guess you're not competent to grasp that. Chris was right - the graph is the real data and nothing you can find from the NSDIC, NOAA or NASA contradicts the fact that Arctic ice has been and still is declining, the sea ice is thinner, and the Arctic permafrost is thawing and melting.

Here's what the NSIDC actually has to say:

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

Even the NSIDC admits the sea ice is breaking up much later then they have records for.

LOL. "Much later"??? LOLOLOLOL. From the NSIDC: "Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999."

And so what? "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March"

"Late-season growth spurt

The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions."

"Ice age and thickness

The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.

Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."

And please stop the juvenile use of expletives...they truly are not needed and only serve to weaken your argument.

They may not be absolutely needed, waspwalleyed, but they sure do feel good. Getting to abuse and insult you idiotic denier cultists and your politically motivated dogmas is one of the best things about this lightly moderated forum. No worries about "weakening" the scientific 'argument' as it is founded on hard evidence and is completely unshakable anyway no matter what names I choose to call you retarded denier douche-bags.

Oh look the resident "save oldsocks ass" troll is back fro another attempt at burying his boys screw up..... lets go to work...

Following your link we see some issues....

1. Your cited quote said briefly....

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

However the very next FAQ you didn't show said the following....

Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Hold on.... If the ice was down 10% per decade since 1979, and it recovered 10% in 2008 and 2009 was greater than 2007 as well, what does that mean? Well it means they are trying to tell as much truth as they can and still give the impression of massive warming...

In other words bullshit......

There you have it in their own words and clear as crystal... Bullshit at its most asinine...

according to them arctic ice was down over 30% since 79. (10% per decade = 30%)

yet in one year it recovered 10% of that original 30% and in the following year they said it was greater than 2007 as well. (they left out how much)

so in the very least we have recovered more than 10% of the 30% it took 30 years to loose..... yep there you have it.... One year we made up a decade of warming... So whats that tell us? it tells us we can make up an entire decades worth of lost arctic ice in a single season, and that is even using their own numbers here...

So if we can and have recovered an entire decade of lost arctic ice, how in the hell does that show a drastic and cataclysmic warming? it doesn't..... Its bullshit....

please keep posting this kind of thing rolling blunder.... I make a living picking apart bullshit.....

 

[onecut39]

CAN YA DO THAT EVEN ONE TIME??????[/B]

Compared to you a bucket of rocks is genius material.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Ice-Volume-PIOMAS.gif

The volume of ice has been declining for many years.

 

[gslack]

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Ice-Volume-PIOMAS.gif

The volume of ice has been declining for many years.

And it increased for many too.... I just showed that thanks to your pal trollingblunders source.... You guys are a great help at stopping this kind of bullshit, don't think I don't appreciate it....

 

[westwall]

Don't you find it amazing how many puppets old fraud can create? I mean no one (who is sane) can beleive the same blather and basically insult the same way as old fraud does and be real. Besides as obnoxious as he(or she) must be in real life I don't imagine them having too many compadres.

 

[gslack]

Don't you find it amazing how many puppets old fraud can create? I mean no one (who is sane) can beleive the same blather and basically insult the same way as old fraud does and be real. Besides as obnoxious as he(or she) must be in real life I don't imagine them having too many compadres.

yeah he and his cronies/socks/proxies are pretty pathetic now.... I find it even more amazing that none of them even question the crap they post or swear to.. I mean come on man some of it has been so unbelievably ignorant it tells on itself.....

 

[westwall]

Hmmmmmmm,

I wonder how this March could be the "warmest on record" when the October through March was in fact the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere? According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab?

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt

Oh, I know how the AGW folks could say that!!! They were using southern hemisphere numbers (where it was SUMMER) to tell us how warm it was in the northern hemisphere!

Brilliant! And it follows their normal methodology!

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.

 

[gslack]

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.

No now you just spent days telling me I don't post ANY science, and now you claim this??

Make up your mind...

The truth is (as you well know) I take what crap you post and show you what it really means.... And that pisses you off to no end as we have seen...

 

[westwall]

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.[/quote






No old fraud,

90% of "climatologists" Think I am full of poo. And in consideration of the fact that they have manipulated and falsified data their opinion no longer matters, in any venue, be it a legal or academic venue.

You also neglect to mention that 2550 or so "scientists" signed onto the AGW bandwagon while predictably leaving out the fact that 17,000 real scientists signed a petition denouncing the fraudulent AGW "science"...and this was years before CLIMATEGATE.

And here is just one of the many real scientists who are denouncing your heroes.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Sem...challenges-peers-to-take-back-climate-science

So go on deluding yourself. Real scientists when they review the evidence will figure out that it doesn't work and will move on and come up with another hypothesis. Your boys on the other hand are circling the drain and they and their failed theory will be flushed down the drain of failed science.

Enjoy!

 

[RollingThunder]

Yes solar activity is at a low ebb (though I don't think it's at an 80 year low I would like to see your evidence for that) and I posted data from scientific sites...even from the organization you got your graph from. And they all say opposite of what you posted.

No they don't but I guess you're not competent to grasp that. Chris was right - the graph is the real data and nothing you can find from the NSDIC, NOAA or NASA contradicts the fact that Arctic ice has been and still is declining, the sea ice is thinner, and the Arctic permafrost is thawing and melting.

Here's what the NSIDC actually has to say:

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

LOL. "Much later"??? LOLOLOLOL. From the NSIDC: "Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999."

And so what? "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March"

"Late-season growth spurt

The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions."

"Ice age and thickness

The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.

Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."

They may not be absolutely needed, waspwalleyed, but they sure do feel good. Getting to abuse and insult you idiotic denier cultists and your politically motivated dogmas is one of the best things about this lightly moderated forum. No worries about "weakening" the scientific 'argument' as it is founded on hard evidence and is completely unshakable anyway no matter what names I choose to call you retarded denier douche-bags.

Following your link we see some issues....

1. Your cited quote said briefly....

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

However the very next FAQ you didn't show said the following....

Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Hold on.... If the ice was down 10% per decade since 1979, and it recovered 10% in 2008 and 2009 was greater than 2007 as well, what does that mean? Well it means they are trying to tell as much truth as they can and still give the impression of massive warming...

LOLOLOLOL....you are such a funny little retard, gsock. Way to go with the ol' cherry-picking. LOL. Now why didn't you quote the rest of that FAQ that you sort of accursed me of deliberately not showing, I wonder? LOL. Let's look at all of what the guys at the NSIDC were saying about whether or not the Arctic ice is 'recovering'.

Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.

LOL. You are such a silly little weasel troll, slack-jawed. Did you really expect to get away with that? LOLOL.

In other words bullshit......

Yup, that about sums up your post. Just like all of your other posts. Total bullshit.

I make a living picking bullshit out of my teeth in a traveling freak show.....

 

[gslack]

No they don't but I guess you're not competent to grasp that. Chris was right - the graph is the real data and nothing you can find from the NSDIC, NOAA or NASA contradicts the fact that Arctic ice has been and still is declining, the sea ice is thinner, and the Arctic permafrost is thawing and melting.

Here's what the NSIDC actually has to say:

Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

LOL. "Much later"??? LOLOLOLOL. From the NSIDC: "Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999."

And so what? "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March"

"Late-season growth spurt

The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions."

"Ice age and thickness

The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.

Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."

They may not be absolutely needed, waspwalleyed, but they sure do feel good. Getting to abuse and insult you idiotic denier cultists and your politically motivated dogmas is one of the best things about this lightly moderated forum. No worries about "weakening" the scientific 'argument' as it is founded on hard evidence and is completely unshakable anyway no matter what names I choose to call you retarded denier douche-bags.

Following your link we see some issues....

1. Your cited quote said briefly....


However the very next FAQ you didn't show said the following....



Hold on.... If the ice was down 10% per decade since 1979, and it recovered 10% in 2008 and 2009 was greater than 2007 as well, what does that mean? Well it means they are trying to tell as much truth as they can and still give the impression of massive warming...

LOLOLOLOL....you are such a funny little retard, gsock. Way to go with the ol' cherry-picking. LOL. Now why didn't you quote the rest of that FAQ that you sort of accursed me of deliberately not showing, I wonder? LOL. Let's look at all of what the guys at the NSIDC were saying about whether or not the Arctic ice is 'recovering'.

Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.

LOL. You are such a silly little weasel troll, slack-jawed. Did you really expect to get away with that? LOLOL.

In other words bullshit......

Yup, that about sums up your post. Just like all of your other posts. Total bullshit.

I make a living picking bullshit out of my teeth in a traveling freak show.....

So after all this time your defense is.... TO re-post the same article and make up a fake quote and attribute it to me???

Wow... Impressive..... For a 12 year old.... Why not just say "unh-uh" and simplify the whole thing? Dude only an idiot like you and your alter egos would do something so asinine.....

Great work genius....

Not very bright are you? lets try again shall we??

If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.

LOL, and you claim to be for the science.....LOL too funny...

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.[/quote






No old fraud,

90% of "climatologists" Think I am full of poo. And in consideration of the fact that they have manipulated and falsified data their opinion no longer matters, in any venue, be it a legal or academic venue.

You also neglect to mention that 2550 or so "scientists" signed onto the AGW bandwagon while predictably leaving out the fact that 17,000 real scientists signed a petition denouncing the fraudulent AGW "science"...and this was years before CLIMATEGATE.

And here is just one of the many real scientists who are denouncing your heroes.

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'

So go on deluding yourself. Real scientists when they review the evidence will figure out that it doesn't work and will move on and come up with another hypothesis. Your boys on the other hand are circling the drain and they and their failed theory will be flushed down the drain of failed science.

Enjoy!

Well, Dr. Soon definately knows which side of the bread is buttered.

Willie Soon - SourceWatch
Global Warming Skeptic
Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored with Sallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors.

Between December 1998[7] and September 2001[8] he was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[9] While Soon remains listed on the websites of various think tanks noted for disputing global warming -- such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the George C. Marshall Institute in the U.S. -- Soon has not written for them for a long time. (For example, the last paper by Soon published on the website of the Fraser Institute dates back to January 2003[1] and for the Marshall Institute the last published paper was in May 2003[2].) (Baliunas was one of the other "scientific advisers").

As of early 2009, Soon's current biographical note states that he "is chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute".[10] Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF)[11] funded, at least in part, by Exxon.[12]

 

[Old Rocks]

gslack;

If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.

LOL, and you claim to be for the science.....LOL too funny...

What is funny is the facility with which you lie. We have not gained any ice back. The volume of ice has been steadily declining. This year will be very interesting. Because we will not only see a decline in coverage over the last two years and probably 2007 also, but we will see a drastic decline in volume.

Will we see record low Arctic ice VOLUME this year? Climate Progress

 

[gslack]

gslack;

If the ice dropped roughly 30% since 79' showing an average of 10% per decade until 2007 it maxed out at around 30% as stated in your article..... And then in in 2009 it increased 10%, after increasing in 2008 as well (which your side denied for the longest time and your article fails to give an amount for)..
THat would mean in one season we got back 10% of the 30% plus whatever percent we gained back in 2008. SO if we can get back 10% in a single season, how can this be considered drastic warming? It can't be and that's the simple and logical truth of it. Its a numbers and data manipulation to show show a false scenario. If it took 30 years to lose 30% of the ice and we got a third of it back in one season, it does not show a drastic warming at all. All the rest of the garbage they talk in that is double talk to hide or diminish this simple truth.

LOL, and you claim to be for the science.....LOL too funny...

What is funny is the facility with which you lie. We have not gained any ice back. The volume of ice has been steadily declining. This year will be very interesting. Because we will not only see a decline in coverage over the last two years and probably 2007 also, but we will see a drastic decline in volume.

Will we see record low Arctic ice VOLUME this year? Climate Progress

Really? I lie? Okay then you can explain how it was your pal's link not mine, and it was to the NSIDC the national snow and ice data center is one of your sides sites... Remember? yeah it is their claim not mine, I just pointed it out to you.....

Like I said before you don't understand this at all, and whats worse you don't even read what you bitch about on here.

And now you bring us a link to green blog to fight the findings of your own sides scientists at NSIDC.. Nice work genius....

 

[westwall]

.

Perhaps because we are talking about Global Warming?

You fellows just yap-yap, or occasionly post nonsense from political sites, or supposed 'science' sites totally supported by Exxon, or some other energy corperation.

I suppose it does rankle you that over 90% of the scientists think you are full of shit. After all, what do their societies state? How about the Science Academys of the various nations, any support your point of view? Ever wonder why not? How about a major university? Any out there that are stating that AGW is not real? None at all? Now isn't that too bad.

Realizing that both of you came in on the short bus when it comes to science, it is understandable that you would not know the real history of the science concerning GHGs. However, you have been pointed to enough information by real scientist that you ignorance at present is a choice you have made yourselves.[/quote






No old fraud,

90% of "climatologists" Think I am full of poo. And in consideration of the fact that they have manipulated and falsified data their opinion no longer matters, in any venue, be it a legal or academic venue.

You also neglect to mention that 2550 or so "scientists" signed onto the AGW bandwagon while predictably leaving out the fact that 17,000 real scientists signed a petition denouncing the fraudulent AGW "science"...and this was years before CLIMATEGATE.

And here is just one of the many real scientists who are denouncing your heroes.

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'

So go on deluding yourself. Real scientists when they review the evidence will figure out that it doesn't work and will move on and come up with another hypothesis. Your boys on the other hand are circling the drain and they and their failed theory will be flushed down the drain of failed science.

Enjoy!

Well, Dr. Soon definately knows which side of the bread is buttered.

Willie Soon - SourceWatch
Global Warming Skeptic
Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored with Sallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors.

Between December 1998[7] and September 2001[8] he was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[9] While Soon remains listed on the websites of various think tanks noted for disputing global warming -- such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the George C. Marshall Institute in the U.S. -- Soon has not written for them for a long time. (For example, the last paper by Soon published on the website of the Fraser Institute dates back to January 2003[1] and for the Marshall Institute the last published paper was in May 2003[2].) (Baliunas was one of the other "scientific advisers").

As of early 2009, Soon's current biographical note states that he "is chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute".[10] Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF)[11] funded, at least in part, by Exxon.[12]

Once again, like a bad penny you whine and snivel about a few hundred grand going to the "evil corporate" wonks while ignoring the BILLIONS GOING TO GLDMAN SACHS, AL GORE, and all the other conspirators in this the biggest fraud in human history....you are either blissfully ignorant or willfully stupid...take your pick.

 

[gslack]

.

Well, Dr. Soon definately knows which side of the bread is buttered.

Willie Soon - SourceWatch
Global Warming Skeptic
Soon has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming. Many of the papers he has published on the topic have been co-authored with Sallie L. Baliunas and sometimes with her and other co-authors.

Between December 1998[7] and September 2001[8] he was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[9] While Soon remains listed on the websites of various think tanks noted for disputing global warming -- such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the George C. Marshall Institute in the U.S. -- Soon has not written for them for a long time. (For example, the last paper by Soon published on the website of the Fraser Institute dates back to January 2003[1] and for the Marshall Institute the last published paper was in May 2003[2].) (Baliunas was one of the other "scientific advisers").

As of early 2009, Soon's current biographical note states that he "is chief science adviser for the Science and Public Policy Institute".[10] Prior to Bob Ferguson founding SPPI in mid 2007, Soon worked with him from mid-2003 at the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom (FOF)[11] funded, at least in part, by Exxon.[12]

Once again, like a bad penny you whine and snivel about a few hundred grand going to the "evil corporate" wonks while ignoring the BILLIONS GOING TO GLDMAN SACHS, AL GORE, and all the other conspirators in this the biggest fraud in human history....you are either blissfully ignorant or willfully stupid...take your pick.

Notice the asshole continues to use sourcewatch even after I showed him point blank they were biased by their own admission and even lied in the article of theirs he used..... Truly a pathetic case of denial....

 

[Si modo]

And, I'm still freezing my ass off. 58 degrees F.

 

[westwall]

.

Once again, like a bad penny you whine and snivel about a few hundred grand going to the "evil corporate" wonks while ignoring the BILLIONS GOING TO GLDMAN SACHS, AL GORE, and all the other conspirators in this the biggest fraud in human history....you are either blissfully ignorant or willfully stupid...take your pick.

Notice the asshole continues to use sourcewatch even after I showed him point blank they were biased by their own admission and even lied in the article of theirs he used..... Truly a pathetic case of denial....

Hi gslack,

I think denial is not accurate. I think old fraud is hoping to profit from the scam. I think that no one can be that completely ignorant and stupid to the point of costing the vast majority of the citizens of this country wealth and liberty unless they have a vested interst in the scam themselves. Otherwise with all of the evidence that has been presented to refute the failed theory of AGW the only other possibility is insanity.