Good Morning, Rog,
>I don't know why you seem to think the NSIDC/NOAA has the monopoly on good data, but mine comes from here: http://arctic-roos.org/observations
I don't think that they have a data monopoly. Nor do I think that they are unethical or biased. Thanks for referencing the site of and the source of your graphs data. I didn't see the actual graph. Can you post its address?
>The last time you impugned the data I use, you ended up having to make an apology to the guy who collates it. Have a care.
Not the data, Rog, and not necessarily the graph. Rather the intent of your presentation of it.
>The global average temperature has got a lot colder in the last two years Skots. Fact. Even Jim Hansen recognises this.
As I indicated, thirty years is the generally accepted typical climate unit. I was under the impression that this conversation was about climate rather than weather. Weather is not climate. You can read about the differences in many places. For example, the daily temperatures that you sometimes include in your posts are weather. Thirty years of daily temps add up to....climate.
> The causal linkages between arctic sea ice extent, global average temperature, wind patterns, shifting warmer ocean currents and polar bear diet is complex, and poorly understood by the jokers who think they know what the future holds based on computer models Skots.
So the "couple year" lag time between temps and Arctic Sea ice that you referred to in your post above is ... bogus, a product of your own world of constructs. Wind currents, ocean currents, temps; they're common terms in Arctic Sea ice climate presentations, often with attribution ratios. Certainly complex, not fully understood, but knowledge based on observations, physics, and modeling.
> One thing for sure is that I don't want their dumb assed politician friends cockamany policies imposed for 30 years until they are forced to admit they got it wrong.
Whoa! Now think science, and try to leave your emotion and political judgments away from the key board. Say "observations and analysis" over and over again. Click your heals together if that helps. Hey! The phrase 30 years has appeared in one of your posts. I see that you think of it as a political unit though. Keep trying!
>Rubbish. It is an accurate graph produced by a reputable scientific institution which correctly shows an upturn in the freezing rate and a return to 30 year averages. To emphasize the point, here's the latest one.
If I'm interpreting the graph series correctly, because of the lower downward trend in March sea ice compared to Sept. sea ice, the return toward the std. deviation band is a normal part of the long term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice. It does not indicate or infer any change in the climatic trend , which is downward. This downward trend, as you know, is clearly evidenced on the site that you reference.
> Rubbish. This years arctic sea ice area is significantly greater than last years, as shown by the graph above. The current trend is upwards.
What do you mean here? The monthly freezing trend or the 2007-2008 trend? You know perfectly well that the length of either term is incidental to long term trend of Arctic Sea ice. Why do you insist on this misrepresentation of term length?
> Yet more rubbish, the ice is thickening quickly, this just in from Steven Goddard:
"There is a major difference in Arctic ice behavior this year compared to 2007. This military buoy shows ice thickness of 1.6 meters and increasing rapidly. In 2007 the minimum summer ice thickness was the same (1.1m,) but thickness didn’t reach 1.6 meters until the end of January."
So, this year is different from the thirty year minimum observed in last year in 2007! This is considered normal annual change in the continuing thirty year downward trend. Was Goddard referring to one buoy or one system of buoys? The long term trend in thickness is downward.
>Would you be interested in taking my bet
At your request, I offered you four wagers on temperature. Despite your persistent bluster about falling temps, you quietly refused all of them. Then you expressed a willingness to take one in modified form, a form that removed the relatively cool global temps of last January from the term of the wager. During January, of course, you were blustering about the downward temp. trend in global weather, and its continuation into a maunder minimum and an 18th century like chill. I've come to think that you're more interested in bluster than betting.I suspect as well, that you're more interested in passing off weather change as climate trend and peddling it to anything with ears.
>I have nothing against the magnificent polar bears. on the contrary I strongly object to them being used as a
political football by an agenda driven, biased, minority interest group bent on misrepresenting the facts. The tabloids show pictures of polar bears perched on shrinking ice floes taken in summer when the ice melts *as it always has* and use the images to convince the public that it's mankind's doing when nothing could be further from the truth.
Interestingly, Rog, I think it was you who first brought polar bears into this thread. I'll have to check to see who first "politicized" the polar bear here. I know that it wasn't me.
> Now, explain to me how it can be that global temperatures have been plummeting for the last two years while man made co2 output has been soaring as the chinese open a new coal fired power plant every month (with the technical help of the governments which are taxing us for our carbon emissions).
I understand that you'd like to change the subject again, as is your technique, but lets stick with ice for a while, eh?
I hope that you're having a fine day, I'm looking forward to mine.