Short it! Short it! Short Al Gore's Arctic Shipping Company.

[In a keynote speech at the Copenhagen talks, the former U.S. vice-president claimed the North Pole could be completely free of ice by the middle of the next decade.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1236090/Inconvenient-truth-Al-Gore-hes-caught-exaggerating-threat-global-warming--again.html

And yet Lake Michigan is boiling its fish!!! OMG,the heat,the heat!!!

I don't know about the arctic ice pack but Al Gore just couldn't keep the ice from melting in his Mint Juleps this summer - now there's a real global crisis. Super class running short on party ice!

Got a couple friends up there right in the sovereignty exercise underway.

Their notes back this way are NOT complaining about the heat.

Coldest summer on record north of 80N. Could this have something to do with the cold below the equator and the blizzards in Chili and Argentina. Has anyone else wondered why coffee futures have sky rocketed?

Ice Extent Minima
2006 5.7 million square kilometres
2007 4.3 million square kilometres
2008 4.7 million square kilometres
2009 5.4 million square kilometres
2010 5.909 million square kilometres. PRESENT [Aug 16] ice extent.

Predictions
2010 5.9 million square kilometres Watts Feb 9 "the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010"
2010 5.5 + or - Watts prediction Aug 15 [your link]
"My forecast (dashed line below) minimum of 5.5 million (JAXA) continues to look conservative. It all comes down to what the winds do over the next few weeks. If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5 – which is looking like a pretty good number right now. Some people at NSIDC started out with a 5.5 forecast this year, but seem to have backed away from it since."

Regarding the Watts predictions, it's not only the NSIC that has "backed away".
Let's watch. Watts first prediction means that melting should stop about NOW. His recent prediction suggests that it should be a little "below" or "above" 5.5 million square kilometres. It has to be above 5.4 for him to say that "the ice continues to recover"

dizzy: Two points ... it comes down to wind, not temps; and Watt didn't make the prediction.

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

I should add -- the daily ice extent on the JAXA site that Watts refers to.

Unfortunately, the AMOUNT of ice has not been "recovering".

Ahhhh Dizzy, ya got sucked in again.

Best check out when your "proof" graph starts & stops. It is a well used trick in Stats.

So since there is more ice extent this year than last and the year before that and the year before that you can call it a rubber duck if you like.

People with more than two brain cells would call it recovering.

Cjunk at August 17, 2010 1:32 PM
// dizzy: Two points ... it comes down to wind, not temps; and Watt didn't make the prediction. //

Point one --
So why did you start this "Arctic Ice Loss" thread with the "coldest summer on record" [and you might have given a reference]
In fact, "Arctic Ice Loss" really "comes down to" arctic ice MASS/VOLUME. [which is declining rapidly]

Point two -- I'll just enlarge the Watts quote from my earlier post --

// Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
Posted on February 9, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010.
[...] //

The point is that one: this year and last are not following the hyperbole from 2007 ... and two: the arctic being at cold summer records demonstrates that AGW is not a factor ... that even during very cold arctic years, there can still be significant ice loss because it's mostly about wind.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

The point is that one: this year and last are not following the hyperbole from 2007 ... and two: the arctic being at cold summer records demonstrates that AGW is not a factor ... that even during very cold arctic years, there can still be significant ice loss because it's mostly about wind.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

So let’s see . . .

Arctic ice extent is increasing.
Arctic ice mass is increasing.
Antarctic ice extent is increasing.
Antarctic ice mass is increasing.
Record cold temperatures in the high Arctic.
Record cold temperatures in Antarctica.

And people still buy into the great AGW scam forecasting that the Poles would be the fastest warming places on the planet, that the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2012.

Climatescientology from the PhD’s
Green Agit-Prop from the Eco-Zealots
Massive profiteering from Al Gore, David Suziki and the rest of the Eco-Grifters.

Some people deserve to pay higher taxes, send donations to the Fruit Fly Society and feel much superior because they drive a Pius.

I mean a Prius.

You know what they say about fools & money.

The place don't exactly look over taken by a heat wave does it?

http://tinyurl.com/255yh8k

By the way Dizzy: If arctic ice "mass" is decreasing ... over what time period is that?

C'mon cjunk, its been decreasing since February!

The CRU crew---NOAA and GISS reported the hottest June in History relying on temps for the Michigan UP ranging from 450-600F and a 4 degree + "anomoly" for the high arctic without a single thermometer north of 80.....
Dizzy must think "the Brothers Grimm" is European History........

Warmest Year-to-Date Global Temperature on Record
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817133158.htm
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2010) — The combined global land and ocean surface temperature made this July the second warmest on record, behind 1998, and the warmest averaged January-July on record. The global average land surface temperature for July and January-July was warmest on record. The global ocean surface temperature for July was the fifth warmest, and for January-July 2010 was the second warmest on record, behind 1998.

a 4 degree + "anomoly" for the high arctic without a single thermometer north of 80.....

oh really? you might want to check your sources on that chief

The Most Northerly
Inhabited Settlement
in the World

Canadian Forces Station
Alert
Nunavut, Canada
82 degs 30 mins 20 secs North Lat
62 degs 21 mins 0 secs West Long

1998 was the warmest year on record?

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

2010 is going to be a boiler according to NOAA.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced

John Galt: They don't use the CF readings.

The global average temperature is increasing above the long term average temperature, ...again. Just like it did 1000 years ago, and 2000 years ago, and 3000 years ago, and 4000 years ago. Starting to see the pattern yet? Can you grasp the simple fact that these periodic warming cycles are perfectly normal and that they have NOTHING to do with human activity, CO2, AGW, AlGore, DSuzuki, etc ?

Global warming cycles are real, they're NOT caused by humans!!!
Got it now?

They don't use the CF readings.
I don't know what part of the planet you're from, or who 'they' are, but if you click on the link thingie you'll learn that Alert has been an Environment Canada weather station for decades.
If you cut and paste the other link in the Science Daily article you'll see that this data is from weather stations around the world, not just in America.

You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.

John Galt: NOAA/NASA/CRU

Part of the contraversy is that the data from many stations around the world is not used. Just because there is a station, doesn't mean the data is used. Many Envir. Can. stations are not used for the global database.There is also the controversy that any reading from land based stations, surrounded by water, are distorted in the summer because of local land specific heating that does not give an accurate reading of temps over ocean.

By the way, one station ... that's it?

As well, nix the personal insults or I won't hesitate to delete you.

We're experiencing warmer than usual summer temperatures in Northern Canada. Higher than usual fire danger across BC, Northern Canada, Russia, Portugal, etc. We've been experiencing warmer and warmer winters for decades. None of us are blaming it on weather station anomalies. We actually live it; it's not just something we read in the MSM.

Strange ... none of your "warmer" experiences apply to Saskatchewan ... or most of Canada for that matter. All of the extremes you mention have been experienced in different parts of Canada, at different times, since Canada was founded ... and well before human CO2 production was an issue; and even since. Stranger yet, Sask has experienced one of it's coldest ever summers in 09.

Are you sure you aren't describing localized weather.

Human produced CO2 has nothing to do with it, I thought I made that clear.

Download 60 years of Envt Cdn temperature data from any weather station across the boreal forest and your see that the winters have been getting steadily warmer.

John Galt - are you having a hard time grasping the scope of the climate fraud?

MAYBE the planet is getting warmer. You don't know that anymore than any one else. The data is so suspect, it literally has become useless.

And if it gets warmer, it's a lot better than another ice age. Cycles... and no amount of tax is going to stop it.

[quote]And if it gets warmer, it's a lot better than another ice age. Cycles[/quote]blackash

Hmm I think an advancing glacier, 2 miles thick, may actually be a source of super heated water vapor that when added to the normal surface area evaporation results in ever increasing Snow Pack. Of course it will eventually stop, but it is simple to prevent a building snow pack...

IMHO Ambient temperature is irrelevant

John Galt: Is that raw data? or adjusted data? how about UHI?

Fred
// Ahhhh Dizzy, ya got sucked in again.
Best check out when your "proof" graph starts & stops. It is a well used trick in Stats.
So since there is more ice extent this year than last and the year before that and the year before that you can call it a rubber duck if you like.
People with more than two brain cells would call it recovering. //
+
Heh. You have some nerve complaining about start/stop tricks. Your "before thats" are really only two years of "recovery". Take one more year, 2006. [above] Ice still hasn't recovered to that point. In fact, ice EXTENT has recovered to about the long term slopeof decline

As to when the "proof" starts & stops, do you mean extent or volume? In either case they stop in 2010. Necessarily, unless you want to extend it into the future.
For extent, there are graphs re going back further.
Not as accurate as the result back to 1979, but they compare favourably with some painting of a ship stuck in the ice in the 1800s as proof that it was warmer then.

In any case, let's see over the next month -- then we can validly say the extent for 2010.
The latest value : 5,832,188 km2 (August 17, 2010) Already below Watt's first prediction.

Try that again.
For extent, there are graphs going back further.

cjunk
// one: this year and last are not following the hyperbole from 2007 ... and two: ... AGW is not a factor ... ... it's mostly about wind //

OK [that's an interesting article]
one -- that article IS from 2007, just 2 months after the 2007 minimum & [you are right] it is not "following the hyperbole from 2007". [Most of the hyperbole was media]
two -- This article reports on a new type of data, gained from GRACE and are attempting to explain as much as possible with it. They are clearly not denying global warming.
The GRACE satellites are wonderful -- two german-built machines moving in unison, facing each other & registeing each other's movements like Ginger Rogers & Fred Astaire.
They have also shown that both greenland & antarctica are losing ice mass.

cjunk
// If arctic ice "mass" is decreasing ... over what time period is that? //

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
&
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Part-1-Is-Arctic-Sea-Ice-recovering.html
In particular the discussion by Tschudi 2010 one page of which is here comparing ice-ages in 1985, 1998 & 2009 --

But see this. Lots of thick ice.
But see this -- it's rotten.

John Galt: Is that raw data? or adjusted data?
Envt Cdn data is raw data, you can access it yourself and do the analysis if you doubt my conclusions that Winter temperature have been steadily rising for decades. Spring, Summer and Fall temperatures have been relatively stable.

I don't buy into the AGW scam at all and I'm fully aware of the climategate scandal, probably more than most of the readers of this forum.

Mann's 'hockey stick' 'unprecedented' temperature rise that AGW is based on is bogus. It's not warming that fast and it's been warmer than now many times in human history.

True science is always challenged, that's an essential function of the scientific process. Real scientists don't label their colleagues as 'deniers' just because they disagree.

Of course the earth is warming. It's been gradually warming for the past 15 thousand years since the end of the last ice age. During that time it's been warmer and colder than it is now as the earth's temperature fluctuates above and below that gradually increasing average. Those natural temperature fluctuations are caused by the variations in the earth's orbit and tilt relative to the sun, and solar activity.

There is ample proof that the earth is warming, however it's a fallacy to attribute that warming primarily to human activity. An analysis of the long term warming and cooling cycles shows that the earth should be heading back into a cooling cycle. If human activity has any effect it's delaying that cooling. Most would argue for a warmer climate rather than colder climate.

The real problem is toxic pollution, and it's 99% caused by human activity. However those who profit from pollution would rather have you distracted by a meaningless 'global warming / climate change' debate so they can keep on polluting. Meanwhile the general public and governments are confused about what to do about 'global warming', and the toxic polluters are winning. The sheeple are so easily confused.

I'm with blackash on this one. All we can say was that the world did warm up over two distinct periods, one in the late 19th century, the other in the first half of the 20th. Until some credible evidence can be produced to show otherwise, the only conclusion one can safely draw from the existing evidence is that the world temperature has been effectively stable since about 1950.