Hiya

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322310 A lot of people now thinking the melt season is over. For only 1 week ago that source was pretty bad!

Do you have some good data to back up this claim?

Imagine people had been playing cricket for billions of years but the history books were destroyed then Lara does a quadruple century and everyone exclaims how there has never been such a high score.

It is YOU who doesn't want to use extent not me, you threw the toys out the pram last week because extent wasn't showing some sort of dreadful catastrophe, but now melt is above average you are back on-side. Yes, there is no doubt the new CryoSat will show us how the ice is doing, but it will take many, many years to have enough data to make use of it. There is no baseline. In the start it will just be a snapshot.

I thought ice extent wasn't important, just a bit of fun? Mearly for jokers? Why is it suddenly of importance?

No that analogy is not what I was suggeting. However it is an excellent analogy for two reasons, it subtly discredits my post offhand and you label me as an unrealistic optomist who should not be taken seriously. Secondly it perfectly portays the frustration of how many people feel about AGW. Heads it is caused by AGW and tails it was caused by AGW. Ironic?

It wasn't a joke in 2007 and the frequent reference you made to it until very recently. Volume measurements will need to be taken for years before we can see a trend. Transport yourself have to the late '70s when the extent sats went up. Even now you can argue we haven't been observing extent with that method long enough. However I'm sure everyone can see it coming about how terrible the volume is, regardless of which figure the new sat gives back and with nothing to compare it to. You avoided talking about Antarctic extent, dismissed its near record extent as fully due to AGW, now that it breaking up due to a storm (probably caused by AGW) you sneak in references to it when almost a sense of glee. I think you will find that most people share your concerns about the state of the planet, however your attitude alienates you. People who disagree with you are not necessarily fools and jokers. Now I'm not any sort of expert on Arctic ice, however from a scientific background I can think of why things are not so bad as you think. You say the ice is spread out, crap ice, low concentrations, etc sounds to me like perfect conditions for a fast refreeze, and the best possible opportunity for a rapid recovery in extent in only a few years given the correct conditions. Ditto above.

Depends on what you call the "first" frost. First after the solstice? There was an air frost nearly a month ago on 23rd July at Kinbrace.

Another "guess" you should write all these down so you don't forget. When was the last "calve" from Antarctica? And what area was it? Not long now before it is off the scale!

"only a matter of time" is not a good phrase in a debate. I rarely post anywhere in here these days, but the way some people seem to view the ice loss in the Arctic and the ice gain in Antarctic is astonishing. It is almost inconvenient that there is ice gain. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg This graph is showing some sort of change post 2007. I implore you to have a good look at it. We can't accelerate loss of Antarctic ice, because we aren’t losing it. Simple words, different meanings. It is only a matter of time before one of your predictions comes true. I'm still waiting on some of your swine 'flu ones.

What do you think the magnitude of these local sea rises were?

Perhaps there were and no one told you? Ridiculous agrument. We live in the media age remember.

In response to your long running story about the increase in Artic ice in March, if it is what you say it is why don't we see the same thing every year? And as an aside comments like the last one in your post really, really get up my nose.

I'm surprised at the red level warnings, we didn't get any of those for the end of Feb event. Raw and wet in Dundee today.

It does, however you cannot point out where your statement comes from. I don't know better nor am I saying you are wrong, I simply want to you to back up your statement with some sort of evidence and you can't do it.

I'm afriad I don't see it, do you have any links to some papers that say that rather than a website on which anything can be written?

Yeah yeah (you know I'm right and so does everyone else that reads this). That link doesn't say anything about doubling carbon dioxide concentrations. What about the source from which you read this statement, can I see that?

I would have been satisfied by a reference rather than a hissy fit. 1. I don't know if you are right or wrong, that is why I asked for proof to your statement. 2. Science isn't a game, even if it was you clearly don't know the rules. 3. You made a statement, you must provide a certain amount of evidence for it before there can be any disproving. This is how a scientist my decide if someone is telling the truth. If the onus was on other people to disprove stuff without first being presented with evidence then scientists would spend an awful lot of time trying to put down any number of statements with the knowledge that the claiment is right if no disproff can be given. 4. I'm sure even you know that last statement isn't true. At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest have you ever claimed that the science behind carbon dioxide - as proved in a lab - is "nailed" so to speak? So can you or can you not prove that your original statement is true? Reference or calculation - either is good by me.

Okay then, prove it.

This "doubling" thing has been popping up again and again over the last few weeks and I've bit my tongue about it, I got into a big argument a year or two back about this and came to the conclusion that there is no point in posting anything of substance. This concept is probably about as basic as you can go, but it is just a turn of phrase to a lot of people. I personally can't be bothered but you might be... to make a wee spreadsheet/table explaining where the above numbers came from.

Again I tend to disagree with the point in bold. I know from my area of research of problems or experiments that cannot be done, this in turn breeds a whole bubble of research round the problem that might not otherwise have been done. Then many years later the problem is solved and someone can review all the research that was done, correct or incorrect. But you are correct about the leap forward after a problem is solved, a good situation to be in if it is in your field! I think I could sum it up by saying there is a time, place and selective audience for which a consensus belongs.

I feel inclined to disagree. Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus. Hard to explain really. Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

That Carson (1982) reference is probably a book not a paper.

Yeah now that a look more closely you're right, sorry about that!

You've failed your NW bushcraft skills course, that is a rabbit track not a dog!