ghrud

There seems to be a late surge at the moment, could still end up being the greatest extent in last five years. Although trend still downwards at the moment.

I think I watched that and I'm not sure but I think he was refering to winter as a whole not just February.

Anyone read this http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

You need proof to blame mankind for warming the planet. The climate is and will always change but are we to blame, the goverment and the METO want us to think so. However, they provide no proof only theory.

If you're a goverment funded body perhaps you have to say what you're told to say. I think the term is "spin"

I was attempting to sit on the fence actually and imply that this needs far more studying.

Any claims that this has been the first time the passage has opened up in recent history, say last 6000 years, is very doubtful. This area of the arctic has only been intensively studied since 1979.... ...and this was long before anybody new anything about man induced climate change.

I think your analogy is a bit misplaced, as I understand it these are the main green house gas offenders - water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs. Of which I hasten to add, water vapour accounts for up to 70%.

Yes, sorry I did notice my mistake :o putting PPB instead PPM but couldn't be bothered to change it as I had some Christmas shopping to do. However, my point was how insignificant an extra 80 PPM is by giving an example of how small 1 PPM is. Still, I must say you're on the ball can't of be on the christmas pop yet then!

Just to put a bit of perspective on this -

Water flows down hill - Fact. Global warming induced by mans activity - Theory. Spot the difference?

Is that a royal "WE" GW or are you directly involved some how?

Perhaps the message is too sublimimal, here's a better example - EDIT Sorry, forgot the links: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6334749.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7219092.stm Count the number of times climate change gets a mention in each artical. In reality is this reporting about climate or is it just weather.

My point exactly because within a few paragraphs you get - ...back to global warming again.

Just because the majority of the scientific community hold this view doesn't make it correct. A good scientist will keep an open mind until something can be proved without doubt. Scientific reporting should follow the same principle. I think you'll find this majority you talk of is now becoming very narrow.

The BBC is bias and its rhetoric on global warming is relentless with no balance in there argument what so ever. I defy anyone to find a recent report from the BBC giving news space to the opposite side of the argument that the recent warming is natural climate change and the trend is now towards cooling.

AGAIN! What do you mean? Example please.

A true scientist always has an open mind.

Can we assume then that 3000 years ago no ice platform existed in this area? If that is the case then perhaps we could look at is this way... ice has been building for the last 3000 years and this is just a minor set back on its relentless journey towards the next iceage. :lol:

Can you point me in the direction of some science that can substantiate your theory of this domino effect?

How can you state that this ice shelf has been stable for the last century; where are you getting your statistics from? We've only had satellite data since the late 70's. Also, to a point GW raised earlier in this thread about the reporting of the Argentine Perito Moreno glacier Ice Dam. I've done a little reseach on this and according most of the Argentine tourist WEB sites the ice dam, breaks-up and rebuilds on a regular basis, didn't exist at the end of the 19th century as the glacier that forms it was some 700m futher back up the mountain. Which would suggest that this glacier is advancing not receeding. Note the word suggests, as I don't know if it is fact!

I'm going to go for 15.9

I agree but as the article says, this is a newly discovered current and therefore little will be known about it yet. I think some hard facts are required about this phenomenon before deciding what influence it may have. Interesting read though!

Too much ice, too little ice; you can't have your cake and eat it!

Southern sea ice building rapidly again now and still well above average.