Arctic starting to look scary - lowest ice ever

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

This is a religion now...not science.

That is exactly what these wingnuts have done.

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

5 months from now, I predict it will be so warm out that I can walk around in a t-shirt!

LOL.

The hot air constantly being blown on this subject in the General Forum is likely a major contributing factor. Keep it up guys, I have crocuses popping up in my garden in Nelson.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do you understand what a scientific theory is? I'm not trying to be snarky, but if you don't, and are thinking in the vernacular, then you won't see the error in what you are saying.

Where are the studies that show the current science is wrong? If there were holes in the theory, the scientists who find and prove that whole would be famous. Your right, theories are subject to testing all the time. But they must be shown to be false, not just said to be.

I think we've covered this before.

You make the claim that I don't understand what scientific theory is while holding up bull**** papers and models that don't predict anything with any accuracy as the gospel.

You want holes in the theory? How about this:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/12/r...ing-pause.html

or this:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...on-the-p-word/

or this:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/...lining-trends/
”Despite the fact that climate activists have changed renamed ‘global warming’ into ‘climate change’ and then to climate ‘disruption’ and ‘global weirding’, the weather and climate is failing to cooperate. Below is a round up of the latest on extreme weather data and studies.”


or this:

Prof. Pielke Jr. : ‘Are US Floods Increasing? The Answer is Still No’ — ‘A new paper out today shows flooding has not increased in U.S. over records of 85 to 127 years’

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/10/...#ixzz40pGXp49G

or this:
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.

or this:
It was hardly the first time UN bureaucrats had made such dire predictions, only to be proven wrong. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Other UN predictions were so ridiculous that they were retracted before they could even be proven wrong. Consider, as just one example, the scandal that came to be known as “Glaciergate.” In its final 2007 report, widely considered the “gospel” of “settled” climate “science,” the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it.

or this:
By now, according to the “not implausible” scaremongering outlined in the report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.

The Pentagon report even claimed there was “general agreement in the scientific community” that the extreme scenarios it envisioned could come to pass, and reporters treated it as if it were a prophecy delivered to climate sinners by God Himself. However, when interviewed by the Washington Times for a June 1, 2014 article, consultant and report co-author Doug Randall expressed surprise at how often the now-debunked forecasts were parroted. Yet he still defended the hysterical fear peddling. “When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,” Randall said. “But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”

or this:
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since rec*ords began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.

or this:
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.

or this:
The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.


or this:
In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.

[rugatika]

or this:
Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

or this:
The website Watts Up With That (WUWT), run by meteorologist and climate researcher Anthony Watts, highlighted the embarrassing record in late 2013 following a particularly devastating year for “climate” predictions. “It seems like every major CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] prediction has failed in 2013,” the article explains, citing a vast trove of scientific data debunking alarmist forecasts. “Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed. The apparent complete failure of the CAGW narrative in 2013 could make the most fundamentalist agnostic wonder if Mother Nature sometimes takes sides, aka the Gore Effect.” Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor.

Few people would make an important decision based on next week’s weather forecast. When it comes to “climate,” though, the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom based on failed models purporting to make predictions decades and even centuries in advance. Flawed predictions aside, a great deal of evidence suggests accuracy or truth was never the intent — generating fear to seize more money and power was (and is). Many top alarmists have admitted as much, with some responding to the implosion of their theories with calls for censorship or, more extreme still, the imprisonment, re-education, and even execution of “climate deniers.”

The Earth’s climate has always changed, and very likely will continue to change, regardless of what humans do. What is now clear, though, is that the establishment has no idea what those changes will be — much less what drives the changes or how to control them.

Anyway...that was fun. Science. Learn it. Maybe you'll change your tune.

I'll help get you started in learning how to "do" science:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...www/node6.html
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

Good luck! If you have any questions just ask.

[densa44]

Maybe He was tired, that's what Mark Twain thought, maybe he just rushed through it. If he had of made ignorance painful we would all be better for it.

It is not hard to find places where mankind has destroyed the earth (Sudbury) or injured people (Grassy Narrows with Hg.) because of willful ignorance.

The earth is getting warmer faster than it has ever done in the past. The issue is not the climatic cycles it is the speed of change we have to worry about.

Why does every one connect CO2 reduction with money? It doesn't have to be that way.

[Newview01]

I have a question rug - how long did it take to find those articles? . Good work though, spot on.

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by Klondike

the sky is falling!! the sky is falling!! We have to up your taxes, give us more money! the sky is falling.

if anything should be deleted form these forums it is this constant load of CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

X 2 ! Certain topics get instant censorship or completely deleted ,,,
Like IF someone refers to the NDP or Justine TurdO in a negative fashion,
or refers to convicted terrorists as killers amongst us , it is gone !

But,,,,

this global warming dribble goes on day after day after day , what a crock of horse sh!t !

[The Cook]

As one man there is nothing I can do to help alleviate this issue but pray. So here goes "Oh Lord give us this day our daily Rum" Amen.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I have a question rug - how long did it take to find those articles? . Good work though, spot on.

5 minutes and I could have kept going for pages and pages of quotes.

One thing these evangelists aren't short on is whacky predictions of apocalyptic scenarios with the hope of scaring people.

I definitely don't put them in the category of scientists. They are more akin to Nostradamus, Jim Jones or Jean Dixon. Con artists with delusions of grandeur and psychic ability that has been proven to be wrong time and time again.

That so many people believe this tripe is just further evidence of the need for schools to focus on teaching real science and the scientific method.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Me too. The combination of cheap gas and the idea of me contributing to warmer winters Spurs me on.

Yep! Just filled the truck with 0.73cent diesel. Feels pretty good!!

[Nester]

Know your audience there OP

[Sundancefisher]

So is global warming causing this


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/world/...iref=obnetwork

1,120 square miles sized ice to block penguins? In Antarctica which has a strong solid ice mass which has been grow since 1970?

Is there an equilibrium? Arctic shrinks...Antarctic grows?

[Sundancefisher]

But Antarctica is also melting. West Antarctic ice sheet is melting. This is seen as a problem. But why is it melting? Global warming? Rest of Antarctica is not melting. So what then? Ocean currents? Yes...the major oscillation currents do cycle and have a huge impact both in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Anything else? How about magma?

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/an...lacier-melting

Where else is this an issue? Are magma factors influencing oceans? Who knows. Great study. Feel free to read factual and not modeled guesses.

[Sundancefisher]

Wow.

When you step back and think about it...how little scientists know is scary since politicians are spending billions on their say so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ng-oceans.html

Their analysis suggests that during this timeframe, climate variability resulted in an increase of approximately 3.2 trillion tons of water being stored in land.

The team learned that the 'water gains over land were spread globally, but taken together they equal the volume of Lake Huron, the world's seventh largest lake.

This gain partially offset water losses from ice sheets, glaciers, and groundwater pumping, slowing the rate of sea level rise by between 0.7 and 0.2 millimetres each year.'

They believe the findings, published in the journal Science, will help scientists better calculate sea level changes in the years ahead.

'These results will lead to a refinement of global sea level budgets, such as those presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which acknowledge the importance of climate-driven changes in hydrology, but have been unable to include any reliable estimate of their contribution to sea level changes,' said senior author Jay Famiglietti, a professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz40qHdrmc4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Sundancefisher]

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)
Guest Blogger / 4 hours ago February 21, 2016

Much has been written about the Karl et al “pause buster” paper published this past summer, this essay suggests Karl et al actually shot themselves in the foot with the paper

Guest essay by Sheldon Walker

In this article we will:

1) look at an interesting new technique for analyzing global warming

2) use the new technique to analyze the time interval [January 1950 to December 1999]

3) use the results of 2) to show why Karl et al got it wrong, in their paper about “The Pause”

Most people are familiar with the use of linear regression in global warming.

Pick a start time, pick an end time, and calculate the slope of the regression line from the dates and temperature anomalies in the data series. What could possibly go wrong?

One of the common accusations made with global warming, is that the start time and/or end time were cherry-picked to give a particular result.

Accusations are also made that the length of the trend was too short to give a significant result (e.g. trends less than 10 years, or even trends less than 30 years).

What if there was a technique that we could use to get around these accusations?

To overcome the problem of cherry-picking, we use all possible start and end times from the time interval being investigated.

To overcome the problem of short trends, we only look at trends which are at least 10 years in length.

For example, imagine that we were interested in the time interval from [January 1975 to December 1999]. This interval is 24 years and 11 months in length. We divide [January 1975 to December 1999] up into EVERY possible trend of at least 10 years.

When I say EVERY possible trend of at least 10 years, I mean EVERY possible trend of at least 10 years. For the time interval [January 1975 to December 1999] there are 16,920 possible trends, and this method uses them ALL.

Example trends from [January 1975 to December 1999]:

================================================== ==

10 year trends: e.g. January 1975 to January 1985

10 year trends: e.g. February 1976 to February 1986

10 year and 1 month trends: e.g. February 1980 to March 1990

10 year and 2 month trends: e.g. January 1985 to March 1995

20 year trends: e.g. September 1979 to September 1999

20 year and 3 month trends: e.g. September 1979 to December 1999

24 year trends: e.g. June 1975 to June 1999

24 year and 5 month trends: e.g. May 1975 to October 1999

24 year and 11 month trends: e.g. January 1975 to December 1999 (the entire interval)

plus the other 16,911 trends.

This might appear to be overwhelming, but with Excel and a modern computer, it can be calculated quite easily.

There are several ways to present the results. The simplest way is to plot a “scatter” graph of the warming rate versus the trend length.

What does the graph of every possible combination of warming rate and trend length for [January 1975 to December 1999], look like? Have a look at Graph 1.



This graph holds a lot of valuable information, but it needs a little interpretation.

For example, how does the warming rate change with the trend length.

From the graph:

The warming rate for 10 year trends varies from -0.20 to +2.80 degC/century

The warming rate for 15 year trends varies from +0.65 to +2.20 degC/century

The warming rate for 20 year trends varies from +1.02 to +1.61 degC/century

The warming rate for 24 year and 11 month trends doesn’t vary at all, because there is only one, which is for the entire period, and it equals +1.71 degC/century

These results probably agree quite well with most people’s expectations. One lesson is, be wary of 10 years trends. You can get just about any warming rate that you want from a 10 year trend. Note than in certain circumstances a 10 year trend can be meaningful, but in general, 10 years trends are all over the place.

In general, warming rates become more stable with increasing trend length. But not always. Look at the warming rates for trend length = 22 years. There is a very small range of warming rates varying from +1.43 to +1.52 degC/century. But as the trend length increases to 23 years, the range of warming rates widens considerably. Why?

Also, after having a fairly stable warming rate of about +1.48 degC/century at trend length 22 years, the interval ends up with a warming rate of +1.71 degC/century for the entire interval. What made the warming rate suddenly increase by over 15%, as the trend length increased by just 3 years?

I am going to guess the answer to these 2 question, using the “scatter” graph, and a graph of the temperature anomalies over the interval. If you disagree with my quick guess then let me know what you think the answer is. At the start of the interval there is a La Nina type event from about 1975 to 1977. At the other end of the interval there is the large 1998 El Nino from about 1997 to 1999. As the trend length gets long enough to be influenced by both of these at the same time, the slope of the regression line is increased by the El Nino at one end, and also increased by the La Nina at the other end. So as the trend length exceeds 22 years, there is a double boost to the warming rate, which the “scatter” graph shows quite nicely.

Looking at the “scatter” graph for a single time interval, is only one possible use for this technique. Comparing the “scatter” graphs from different time intervals is another exciting possibility. It is this method that I will use to prove that Karl et al got it wrong in their paper about “The Pause” (“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”).

To start, have look at Graph 2. This is similar to Graph 1, but shows every possible combination of warming rate and trend length for a different time interval, this time [January 1950 to December 1974]. This graph looks a bit like the one for [January 1975 to December 1999], but it is also a bit different.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...02/graph-2.png

To make it easier to compare these scatter graphs, I will put them onto the same graph. This means that one of the graphs hides some of the other graph, where they overlap. If necessary, this can be improved by plotting only the perimeters of each graph, but I am more interested in where the graphs don’t overlap at the moment, so we will ignore the overlap for now.

See Graph 3 – All combinations of warming rate and trend length that exist in the periods [1975 to 1999] and [1950 to 1974], for trends of at least 10 years.



Now it is easier to appreciate the differences between the 2 graphs. They are sort of similar in shape, but the green curve is translated down from the orange curve. Why is this? Looking at the warming rate for the entire interval for each graph gives the answer.

The orange curve has a 24 year and 11 month trend of +1.71 degC/century. A rate of global warming which is NOT low.

The green curve has a 24 year and 11 month trend of +0.28 degC/century. There is not much global warming in this interval.

Note how there is no overlap between the 2 graphs for trend lengths greater than about 15 years. This reinforces the idea that these 2 time intervals have very different warming rate profiles.

Now, the BIG question. If you add together these 2 periods, [1950 to 1974] and [1975 to 1999], and calculate the warming rate for the combined interval [1950 to 1999], what would the warming rate be? I have done this, and a linear regression over the combined interval has a warming rate of +1.12 degC/century. OK, but what does this value of +1.12 degC/century actually represent.

It is NOT the warming rate for normal anthropogenic global warming.

It is NOT the warming rate for when there is NO anthropogenic global warming.

It is an artificial average rate of warming, for an interval when anthropogenic global warming was present for about 1/2 the time, and absent for about 1/2 the time.

Unfortunately, Karl et al used this value as their “normal” anthropogenic warming rate, and based on this value, they concluded that the warming rate for [2000 to 2014] did NOT support the notion of a global warming “hiatus”.

Recapping quickly on the Karl et al paper:

Karl et al adjusted the NOAA data to account for the 0.12 degC average difference between buoy and ship SSTs. This “correction” had an impact on temperature trends, with the largest impact being on trends from 2000 to 2014 (which is where “The Pause” was meant to be).

So Karl et al calculated the new warming rates for [1950 to 1999] and [2000 to 2014]. They got:

Warming rate [1950 to 1999] = +1.13 degC/century

Warming rate [2000 to 2014] = +1.16 degC/century

Karl et al concluded that since the warming rate from [2000 to 2014] was virtually indistinguishable from the warming rate from [1950 to 1999], it does NOT support the notion of a global warming “hiatus”.

I am NOT questioning the adjustments that Karl et al made to Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs). I am not qualified to dispute these adjustments, so I will use the adjusted NOAA data as it stands. Special note – I am using the NOAA data. If I find a “Pause” in the NOAA data, then they can not accuse me of using the wrong data.

I am also NOT disputing the calculation results from Karl et al. I get very similar results to theirs.

My issue is with the use of the Warming rate for [1950 to 1999]. Karl et al said this:

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1).”

Now [1975 to 1999] is an interval having significant anthropogenic global warming.

But [1950 to 1974] is an interval having very little anthropogenic global warming.

By joining these 2 intervals together to form [1950 to 1999], Karl et al have created an interval that basically has half strength anthropogenic global warming (half with warming, and half without warming). But Karl et al used this value as their “normal” anthropogenic warming rate, when they compared it to [2000 to 2014].

If the warming rate for [2000 to 2014] matches the warming rate for [1950 to 1999] (which it does), then that means that [2000 to 2014] also has half strength anthropogenic global warming.

There are 2 simple ways to explain how [2000 to 2014] could have half strength anthropogenic global warming.

1) The period [2000 to 2014] could consist of 2 parts, one part which has anthropogenic global warming, and one part which does NOT have anthropogenic global warming (like [1950 to 1999]). But I do not think that this is the case.

2) The more reasonable explanation is that the period [2000 to 2014] has a lower warming rate than “normal” anthropogenic global warming. The warming rate would be about 50% of the “normal” warming rate. This could be called a “Slowdown”, a “Hiatus”, or a “Pause”. Whichever name you prefer, the data shows that it exists.

So Karl et al, while trying to convince everybody that there is NO Pause, have actually provided strong evidence that “The Pause” does exist (once their error concerning [1950 to 1999] is corrected).

==========

In part 2 of this article, I will analyse [2000 to 2015] using the new technique described in this article.

[skidderman]

There are many articles such as the following that clearly show scientists who promote global warming get funding and those who oppose it get black balled. If you really want negative stuff type in USA financial collapse or world financial collapse. Yes it may happen but no one has the crystal ball to know how or when yet there are literally thousands claiming that they have the answer. B.S.. If you chose to listen to all the negatives, go ahead. Funny that media rarely writes anything positive. Follow the money is key to all of this.
https://lexingtonlibertarian.wordpre...-warming-hoax/

[Acesneights]

Evolution!!!! It's been happening since dinosaurs!!!!

[Peter Gill]

Are you denying that the satellite data is incorrect?

That statement is obtuse in the extreme: denying that something is incorrect is equivalent to agreeing that it is correct. So yes, I am denying that the satellite data is incorrect as I believe it is correct. Despite CAGW tub-thumpers Mann, Santer, Dessler et al claiming exactly that since it doesn't conform to their view of the climate. My issue is in people such as you claiming supported "data" for areas for which there is no data collection.
Specifically, there is no data coverage for the entire polar region yet CAGW proponents like Serreze constantly refer to the entire region.

That data shows the spread of sea ice. You're trying to reference temperature anomalies.

Your first referenced article opens with a Land-Ocean Temperature Index graphic. Temperature, not sea ice. Temperature occurs 12 times while sea ice occurs four. The article's first hyperlink takes you to a temperature anamoly time series; the second to a Land-Ocean Temperature Index. Serreze refers to the 925mb level: if the "data" is only about sea ice, is there some mysterious layer of sea ice floating around 3000ft above the surface? The primary jist of the article is temperature & temperature anomalies, and you find it odd that I refer to exactly that?

It is like they are excluding surface temperatures over sea ice in their information. Am I reading this correct?

SDF, that is correct.
Goddard infills areas without temperature samples using 1200km smoothing, masking sea surface temperature data at the poles, anywhere seasonal sea ice has existed, and extending land surface temperature data out over the oceans regardless of whether or not sea surface temperature observations for the polar oceans are available that month. GISS uses two primary land temperature sources for the WH Arctic, Eureka & Pt Barrow. IOW, most of their Arctic sea ice temp data is inferred from two land weather stations. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/so...3/gistemp.html).
NCEI does not infill over the polar oceans when sea ice exists: where sea ice exists, NCEI leaves a polar ocean grid blank. Apparently temperature ceases to exist where the ocean freezes.
Unlike the GISS and NCEI reconstructions, grids without temperature samples for a given month are not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product. That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is left blank. Blank grids are indirectly assigned the average values for their respective hemispheres before the hemispheric values are merged. You can decide if a hemispheric average temperature is representative of frozen sea water.

[FlyTheory]

Wow you guys have a lot of time to do fsa... Why not do something useful instead of trying to convince eachother of theories that you are clearly adamant on adhering to. Give up because you won't convince eachother it's been 5 threads of this BS, form your opinion and stick to it. It's a religion on both ends at this point. So go make a real difference and go cut down for caraganas, pick up garbage or volunteer.

[V_1]

Originally Posted by clarki

Why are scientists "scared"?? What is so scary??

Their AGW grants etc are in danger. Their models cannot explain why Arctic ice is low and Antarctic ice grows. Switching places once in a while, too. And this breed of 'scientists" cannot do anything else.

[dmcbride]

Gee, I wonder how much ice melted 100 years ago when it was a warmer year than last.

[HoytCRX32]

It's Canada's fault, more specifically it's Alberta's fault, more specifically it's Fort McMurray's fault, more specifically it's the oil sands fault, more specifically it's Tim Horton's fault, because if there was no Timmies in Fort Mac, we never would have gotten millions of CO2 spewing Newfies to come here
No disrespect to our Atlantic friends

[michaelmicallef]

Originally Posted by Klondike

the sky is falling!! the sky is falling!! We have to up your taxes, give us more money! the sky is falling.

if anything should be deleted form these forums it is this constant load of CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You missed one of these "!". And isn't the bottom line " We are here for a good time not a long time" that is the way human roll and nothing will change that's except Mother Nature .

[tchammer]

Originally Posted by michaelmicallef

You missed one of these "!".

Best post of the thread!