bluecon

Where do you get that idea? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

(i)That is what is passed off as science nowadays? Make up some data to fit the cause? That is embarrassing for the science community. They have no idea what the ice cover has been for the last 130 years. (ii)Normally the melt will be largely concluded within a few weeks from now. (iii)The BBC has trumpeted up the scientists calling for an ice free Arctic this year. Look back in this thread and you will see the proponents were firm in their beliefs that there would be less ice in 2008 than 2007. The scare mongers want to have it both ways. If you look at the AGW models pre 1998 they show a steady increase in temperature as manmade CO2 increased. These models have proved to be totally wrong even as Hansen has tried to fudge the facts.

Records back to 1870? Please provide the 1870 ice melt record. Not very likely there is a month and a half of melt left. If the ice is not less than the 2007 level does that not mean the consensus of scientists were wrong?

Well that all changed when Clinton and Gore were elected to office and took over in '92. Gore purged those that disagreed with the AGW theory and promoted the likes of Hansen. You're not serious? I would like to see something from pre 1998 predicting the temps we have seen coinciding with a huge increase in CO2 emissions. That is the new theory of AGW which is popping up to cover for the reality that all the models were wrong. Soon it looks as though the AGW theory will be exposed and put to rest.

Of course over time. Fact remains the Earth is not warming.

I have seen no AGW graphs that predicted the lack of temperature increase or as is no occuring a downturn in temps. Please provide one.

There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emissions and no increase in temps. The AGW theory clearly states that an increase in CO2 will cause a rapid and irreversible temperature increase. The models are all wrong. Interestingly enough a charcoal barbecue is a far worse producer of greenhouse gasses and pollution than a vehicle.

I don't need a pear reviewed paper to see for the last ten years that the climate is starting to cool despite the huge increase in manmade CO2. That speaks for itself. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...nt-ruling.thtml

Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid." http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Washington...kersaddress.pdf

The Real Climate graph stops at 1998. How convenient to ignore the huge increase in manmade CO2 and the corresponding stable and then dropping temps of the last ten years. Can Real Climate explain the huge increase in manmade CO2 and no corresponding temp increases for the last ten years?

It's the way the game has been played. If you support AGW the money will flow to you. If you stick to your principals and do the research that points against AGW you will receive no funds. This is a black eye for science. I have great respect for the scientists that have seen their careers diminished since they took the high path. History is full of great scientist that went against the consensus and were eventually proved right. It is awful hard to go against the mainstream when the easy way is to agree and sit back and collect the money. Shows character. Men that stick to their principals against their own betterment for what they believe in is what made our society great. Very few like that left in the world.

QUOTE (osmposm @ 19 Jul 2008, 03:41 PM) Thanks for that, Blue. As you can read, he encountered plenty of ice! I looked it up and he did run into ice near the entrance to the Prince of Wales Straight. Other than that it was mostly ice free. Must have been similar or warmer than most recent years.

Looks very unlikely at this point that the melt will be anywhere near last years. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=22&sy=2008 And starting to pass the 2005 and 2006 minimum. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Later in the voyage when he came up to the Prince of Wales straight he reported it ice free. I am going to look up the book just to get an accurate view. He did keep a daily log.

Getting pretty complicated. i am still trying to determine how the massive increases in CO2 emmoissions correspond to stable or lowering temperatures. Does this not make the AGW theory wrong?

Link to a map of Larsen's routes through the NW Passage. Larsen wrote a book about the trip. http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

Except for the fact that there are hundreds of these trucks running around the ice all winter. And when you install a particulate trap in the exhaust the argument is moot since the particulate matter is not released. Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine research "The probability that in 2008 the ice extent will fall below the minimum from September 2007 is about 8%, the probability to fall below the minimum of 2005 (second lowest value in the last 20 years) is practically 100%. With a probability of 80% the minimum ice extent in 2008 will be in the range between 4.16 and 4.70 million km2" http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_div...008_an_outlook/ "During 1944 east to west passage Larsen used the previously uncharted, deepwater route through Lancaster Sound and Prince of Wales Strait, a route that he had intended to use eastward in 1940. This route was subsequently followed by large naval (HMC Labrador - 1954) and commercial ships as well as American submarines (1946 - Sea Dragon). " http://lit.lib.ru/t/tatarin_l_s/msword-29.shtml

The trucks are huge diesels of 500+ hp carrying 100,000lb loads across the ice. Teensy weensy lorries by English standards? And with modern technology soot traps are standard on the new diesels. Could be put on any diesel. Now you can sleep better I hope. The St. Roch took the southern poute the first time through the passage and was froze in for a couple years. On the return voyage they took the more northern route and I don't believe they had to break any ice.

Who is clutching these straws? Well you have been predicting much less ice in the Arctic this year than last. Are you changing your opinion? Well we run huge diesel trucks through the Canadian Arctic every year over the ice roads. Much more soot than a boat and it doesn't seem to matter.

Why is it that the huge increase in manmade CO2 coincides with no increase in temps? The computer models do not predict that.

True that Henry Larsen travelled through 2 different NW passages in the 40's. And in the northern passage he never broke through ice to do it.

How do you explain the huge increase in manmade CO2 and no increase in temps for the last ten years. The computer modelling has been shown to be totally bogus.

What crazy people! We tell them a tiny increase in CO2 will destroy the whole world and they don't believe it! Just crazy of them.

No

The 2000 voyage was by the St. Roch 2 and was a recreation of the 1944 voyage of the St. Roch through the uncharted northern passage. The St. Roch easily navigated the passage in 1944 and more than a hundred boats have done the same thing. Just BBC propoganda. When I was doing my geology thesis paper in the early 80's my proff scoffed at the idea that an Ice Age was coming.(that was the scientific consensus then) He correctly asserted that we were still in a warming from the last Ice Age. He was an eccentric brilliant scientist. Just give me next Thursdays weather and I would be amazed. Went down to Lake Erie today and the water was so cold you could not walk in it for more than a few meters or your feet were numb. The air temp in the city was around 90 deg and probably 20 deg lower at the shore. I have seen the cold water condition before but never to this extreme. The lake was covered with a low fog. Climate is totally unpredictable.