Arctic Ice Discussion

[noiv]

> I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people. The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

Jethro,

I hesitate to ask about your source of news, it appears disconnected. Is it latest edition? The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, US, etc. closed in 2005 the debate [pdf] and proposed to prepare for the consequences. In 2009 a online survey among +3000 scientists, listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, found near-unanimous agreement by climatologists, however some petroleum geologists and meteorologists disagreed by ~50% with human involvement [CNN]. Some weeks ago the Australian scientific community stated: The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

But there is progress: You've confessed CO2 is a greenhouse gas, would you also agree on burning fossil fuel releases CO2? And the amount of human CO2 is rising? And GHGs heat the atmosphere?

Or are you saying there is still a debate over why 30 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 per year do nothing?

Plot: Arctic sea ice area still comparable to 2007

[Alan Robinson]

> I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people. The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

Jethro,

I hesitate to ask about your source of news, it appears disconnected. Is it latest edition? The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, US, etc. closed in 2005 the debate [pdf] and proposed to prepare for the consequences. In 2009 a online survey among +3000 scientists, listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, found near-unanimous agreement by climatologists, however some petroleum geologists and meteorologists disagreed by ~50% with human involvement [CNN]. Some weeks ago the Australian scientific community stated: The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

But there is progress: You've confessed CO2 is a greenhouse gas, would you also agree on burning fossil fuel releases CO2? And the amount of human CO2 is rising? And GHGs heat the atmosphere?

Or are you saying there is still a debate over why 30 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 per year do nothing?

Plot: Arctic sea ice area still comparable to 2007

I am sure you are just using the same popular terminology as the general public, and that you are quite aware that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way I use my greenhouse to grow tomato seedlings in March. Is there a more scientific designation than "greenhouse gas" noiv?

In my own simple way I am interested in mathematical modelling, and as I gather you are an erudite sort noiv, while jethro is considering what to put to you, perhaps you could expand on what she wrote the other day, namely that the warming effect of discharging carbon dixide into the atmosphere is logarithmic. She simplified it saying that the more you discharge the less effect it has - or something like that. I then posted that it is more complex, and if f(x) = ln(x), then adding just a little to a tiny amount might well have a far greater effect than adding a lot to a lot, such is the function. My question to you is, where do we stand on the logarithmic curve, and does the function used in the mathematical models have coefficients and constants. perhaps yuou can point me to it in published literature?

Edited July 31, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[scotty_boy_winter]

That pretty much sums up what I'm saying, there is no debate on global warming. It was and is a proven science. We shouldn't even be debating whether it exists are not. It does. Fact. It should be what can we do to lessen the impact. The arctic ice thread fits i'n with this as the downward spiral is there i'n bare figures for all to see

[quote name=noiv' timestamp='1312121884'

post='2112341]

> I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people. The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

Jethro,

I hesitate to ask about your source of news, it appears disconnected. Is it latest edition? The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, US, etc. closed in 2005 the debate [pdf] and proposed to prepare for the consequences. In 2009 a online survey among +3000 scientists, listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, found near-unanimous agreement by climatologists, however some petroleum geologists and meteorologists disagreed by ~50% with human involvement [CNN]. Some weeks ago the Australian scientific community stated: The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

But there is progress: You've confessed CO2 is a greenhouse gas, would you also agree on burning fossil fuel releases CO2? And the amount of human CO2 is rising? And GHGs heat the atmosphere?

Or are you saying there is still a debate over why 30 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 per year do nothing?

Plot: Arctic sea ice area still comparable to 2007

[BornFromTheVoid]

A drop of just 22k on todays IJIS update, which is very low for the time of year with the average being around 71k. Still nothing exceptional though, as there have been rare gains in July before, but they are always small and temporary.

That pretty much sums up what I'm saying, there is no debate on global warming. It was and is a proven science. We shouldn't even be debating whether it exists are not. It does. Fact. It should be what can we do to lessen the impact. The arctic ice thread fits i'n with this as the downward spiral is there i'n bare figures for all to see

SBW, I don't think people are denying that CO₂ results in warming and we've most likely caused some warming with how much has been released into the atmosphere. The point that's being argued is how much warming has been due to our fossil fuel usage and how much is natural. Subsequently, the same thing can be argued wrt Arctic sea ice, how much of the loss is because of us and how much would have occurred naturally anyway.

Simply exclaiming that there is no debate to be had and dismissing other peoples points will gain you no friends or respect on here. If you're not willing to debate than you're probably best off elsewhere...

[cooling climate]

That pretty much sums up what I'm saying, there is no debate on global warming. It was and is a proven science. We shouldn't even be debating whether it exists are not. It does. Fact. It should be what can we do to lessen the impact. The arctic ice thread fits i'n with this as the downward spiral is there i'n bare figures for all to see

To come out with such a statement tells me that you have done very little reading or

learning on the subject but have instead decided to take daddies word for it.

[DeepSnow]

That pretty much sums up what I'm saying, there is no debate on global warming. It was and is a proven science. We shouldn't even be debating whether it exists are not. It does. Fact. It should be what can we do to lessen the impact. The arctic ice thread fits i'n with this as the downward spiral is there i'n bare figures for all to see

I have been reading this thread on and off, and from what I can gather no-one is saying that global warming/climate change isn't real, as most know very well that it is and there is no denying it! Global warming/climate change is completely natural and though I have no sources to post on here, I believe I have seen/heard several times that natural climate variability has lead to the complete loss of Arctic ice in summer months in the past. However the question more in debate is how real is anthropogenic global warming and what further complications that can have on the Arctic region!

There is no need to say such things as " It was and is a proven science" about global warming/climate change as im sure most on here will agree! However saying things like "Agw is scientifically proven. FACT. What do you not understand about that?" you will need to provide some sort of evidence to back that up, as isn't there a lot of debate whether this is true and to what extent?

I read this thread to find out about how the Arctic is doing through the year, not to read what I see as an unnecessary debate that can be given its own thread elsewhere instead of cluttering this thread!

Edited July 31, 2011 by DeepSnow

[noiv]

Alan Robinson > My question to you is, where do we stand on the logarithmic curve, and does the function used in the mathematical models have coefficients and constants. perhaps you can point me to it in published literature?

Found here: http://www.csiro.au/...i_pageNo-2.html also try google or wikipedia and pick what you like. If you are interested doing the math check out the discussion here. Indeed much more CO2 is needed to achieve an effect the more you are on right the side of the graph. However, discussing how much petatons of CO2 are needed to higher the temperature from 100°C to 101°C is at best ridiculous business. Once we changed the temperature by +6°C - a value at the upper end of business as usual scenarios for this century - this is a different planet and most probably features like e.g. Amazon Rainforest will become part of history lessons at school.

Reuters: Climate change brings tea and apricots to Britain

I read this thread to find out about how the Arctic is doing through the year, not to read what I see as an unnecessary debate that can be given its own thread elsewhere instead of cluttering this thread!

Agreed, some questions could be handled via private messaging. But you will understand assertions similar to "do we need sea ice?" can not remain without response here, hence the discussions.

[DeepSnow]

Agreed, some questions could be handled via private messaging. But you will understand assertions similar to "do we need sea ice?" can not remain without response here, hence the discussions.

Yes I agree that talk about the sea ice does belong here, but the talking about agw being real or not etc, that doesn't belong here and does get frustrating trying to get through that debate to get to what you want with the sea ice discussion!

[pottyprof]

Reuters: Climate change brings tea and apricots to Britain

That’s why it’s become the first tea growing region in the United Kingdom. Tregothnan first planted ornamental Tea over 200 years ago.

http://englishtea.org.uk/tregothnan_english_tea.html

To be honest, I don't know why I'm bothering.........

Oh that's it.... Just to make a point that someone who thinks tea growing is a new thing in the UK. I will say this though. Any further offtopicness (is that a word?) will be removed by delete. There will be no editing. If you feel brave and write a huge reply and it contains anything off topic, the whole thing will vanish.

Ta muchly.........

[scotty_boy_winter]

I couldn't agree more there's nothing more frustrating than when this thread goes off on a tangent

Yes I agree that talk about the sea ice does belong here, but the talking about agw being real or not etc, that doesn't belong here and does get frustrating trying to get through that debate to get to what you want with the sea ice discussion!

[jethro]

> I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people. The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

Jethro,

I hesitate to ask about your source of news, it appears disconnected. Is it latest edition? The national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, UK, US, etc. closed in 2005 the debate [pdf] and proposed to prepare for the consequences. In 2009 a online survey among +3000 scientists, listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, found near-unanimous agreement by climatologists, however some petroleum geologists and meteorologists disagreed by ~50% with human involvement [CNN]. Some weeks ago the Australian scientific community stated: The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

But there is progress: You've confessed CO2 is a greenhouse gas, would you also agree on burning fossil fuel releases CO2? And the amount of human CO2 is rising? And GHGs heat the atmosphere?

Or are you saying there is still a debate over why 30 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 per year do nothing?

Plot: Arctic sea ice area still comparable to 2007

If you scan through the various threads in this section and choose a more appropriate one to ask those questions in, I'll happily answer (if my dodgy/sick computer allows).

[noiv]

> trying to get through that debate to get to what you want with the sea ice discussion!

I'll try, may be someone is interested on what's my personal take-away info from here today: http://www.arctic.io/sea-ice-charts/, http://www.arctic.io...4-N89-E0/Arctic and here https://sites.google...icseaicegraphs/. Usually first step is the forecast, GFS sees high pressure developing over Greenland with a western tendency. As result SE wind will continue to blow offshore from the Canadian Archipelago. Current temps there are around 10'C, one station reported 27°C, may be I check tomorrow whether a BBQ was close . I would say with given temperature and direction of wind the fragmented NW Passage will continue to open fast. But that's 3 days ahead.

On the Russian side I see no clear picture not only because of the clouds. But looks like the wind drives the floes in new directions all days and icebreakers are ordered back from holidays. However, good mixing of ice and water uses all available energy to melt and reported water temp is around 0°C, so no sensations here.

Beside NWP there is only ice left in the Arctic Ocean, that's why the extent graph slowed down. As long as there are multiple pressure systems involved I do not expect anything worth to announce will happen, the ice just continues melting. Usually I look more on area than extent this time, because the 15% threshold of the latter is tricky and depends on the wind (compaction). But since finally the most thrilling thing is extent I also have an eye on latest typhoon, which might shuffle all cards again a few days, if the remnants are powerful enough.

In one sentence: Same procedure as last year with less ice.

If you scan through the various threads in this section and choose a more appropriate one to ask those questions in, I'll happily answer (if my dodgy/sick computer allows).

You gave up?

Edited July 31, 2011 by noiv

[Alan Robinson]

Alan Robinson > My question to you is, where do we stand on the logarithmic curve, and does the function used in the mathematical models have coefficients and constants. perhaps you can point me to it in published literature?

Found here: http://www.csiro.au/...i_pageNo-2.html also try google or wikipedia and pick what you like. If you are interested doing the math check out the discussion here. Indeed much more CO2 is needed to achieve an effect the more you are on right the side of the graph. However, discussing how much petatons of CO2 are needed to higher the temperature from 100°C to 101°C is at best ridiculous business. Once we changed the temperature by +6°C - a value at the upper end of business as usual scenarios for this century - this is a different planet and most probably features like e.g. Amazon Rainforest will become part of history lessons at school.

Reuters: Climate change brings tea and apricots to Britain

Agreed, some questions could be handled via private messaging. But you will understand assertions similar to "do we need sea ice?" can not remain without response here, hence the discussions.

Thank you noiv, that is most informative. I notice that when the atmospheric CO2 content falls below approximately 300 ppm (by volume I take it) that the dependent variable becomes negative, and by this I suppose we are to understand that instead of warming us, atmospheric CO2 in fact cools us. (Jethro, adding CO2 when the ppm is less than 300 in fact reduces the amount of cooling).

I then went, as you kindly suggested to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere, and at the top right hand side of that article is a curve showing just what the atmospheric CO2 content has been since 1960 in Hawaii. Roughly speaking, in 1960 it was 316ppm, and in 2008 about 385ppm. That is a considerable rise over a short time, what is confirmed further down in the wikipedia article. Now I know that extrapolation is naughty, but taking the dependent variable from that upper right hand wikipedia curve and using it as the independent variable in the curve you kindly posted, the conclusion can only be that prior to 1950 and when seen in isolation, atmospheric CO2 had a cooling effect, which back in 1900 must have been significant.

Next I looked for records concerning the extent of arctic sea ice, and not surprisingly, most of them only go back, say 30 years or so, as prior to that, there was no satellite observation. I did however find this, http://irregulartime...inking-ice-cap/, and it seems that around 1950, mariners reported little annual change in the extent of arctic sea ice. The annual decrease in sea ice only became disturbing in the late 1960s. Presumably there is some sort of thermal inertia causing a lag in melting as the CO2 effect becomes positive in 1950.

To summarise this reading, atmospheric CO2 has been rising beyond its historic peaks since the start of the industrial revolution, but until around 1950, its effect on the atmosphere was to cool it, not heat it. This is what is called in thermodynamics a sink, rather than a source. Global warming is however supposed to have been going on for longer however, and so some other warming process must be at work than CO2, and prior to 1950, CO2 has in fact had a moderating effect on whatever was warming Earth up. However, since 1950, atmospheric CO2 has contributed to warming, becoming a source rather than a sink. There are no reliable records of the annual extent of Arctic sea ice prior to about 1950, but in the late 1960s the sea ice went into dramatic decline. Because of background warming we might reasonably expect sea ice to have been diminishing in 1950 too as the cooling effect of CO2 diminished, at yet mariners at that time were reporting little change.

Okay, that's how it could be summarised, but personally, I am not satisfied because we have no reliable records of the extent of sea ice before the Space Age.

So much for the science. I happen to have lived in Denmark for donkey's years, and have aquaintences whose ancestors were stationed for years in Greenland. A few keen Danes have studied Inuit folklore in depth, and I am sure that in conversation I heard of Inuit fables and traditional songs that recall extraordinary variations in the extent of sea ice. Now I don't for one minute propose we use fables and ancient songs as a starting point for our considerations of Arctic sea ice in past times.

Having been kind enough to help me this far, can you therefore point me in the direction of methods purporting to signify the extent of Arctic sea ice prior to 1950?

Edited August 1, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Alan! I don't think you should totally disregard Folk-law esp. in a culture where history is recalled and not written? We can see in the paleo data that sections of the basin did indeed show withdrawals for periods in the past (stuck patterns?) but not across the whole Basin (as now) for a long , long time!

The other thing of note are the problems now faced by the native folk of the north as they struggle to adapt to the changes they live through. They are even being taught about the dangers of 'wasps' in N Canada as th local population have never encountered them before! (if they had then their 'folk-law ' would surely have had info/advice on how to deal with them?).

It would also seem that the Natives of Alaska can no longer rely upon their 'weather lore' as the weather now changes much faster. The elders were taught how to spot bad weather a long ways out (to give them time to get off the ice and then home) but these days the weather is with them in hours instead of days!

In N.Eurasia 'rains' are forming an ice layer over the Lichen that the Reindeer feed on leading to the herders to start castrating the males (they become bigger thereafter and better able to break through the ice layer to get to the food below). They also have lost many small , trout filled, lakes across the Tundra as the frozen bases melt out and the water seeps away. As with the Nomads of the world's deserts such spots were keenly remembered by the tribes/families, and their locations passed down over the generations, so it would seem that this, as well, is 'new' to these peoples.

Science (in both the N.Americas and Greenland) is at last utilising the collective knowledge of the locals to help with both their present studies and reconstructions of the changes so far.

[quest4peace]

Are we seeing a slight recovery here (maybe recovery is the wrong term)? or is it just teasing us before it makes another dive for it? I'd take a 2006 kind of slowdown right now,anything to get us away from 2007. Edited August 1, 2011 by quest4peace

[4wd]

Something similar to 2009 or 2010 is probably most likely.

[Alan Robinson]

Hi Alan! I don't think you should totally disregard Folk-law esp. in a culture where history is recalled and not written? We can see in the paleo data that sections of the basin did indeed show withdrawals for periods in the past (stuck patterns?) but not across the whole Basin (as now) for a long , long time!

The other thing of note are the problems now faced by the native folk of the north as they struggle to adapt to the changes they live through. They are even being taught about the dangers of 'wasps' in N Canada as th local population have never encountered them before! (if they had then their 'folk-law ' would surely have had info/advice on how to deal with them?).

It would also seem that the Natives of Alaska can no longer rely upon their 'weather lore' as the weather now changes much faster. The elders were taught how to spot bad weather a long ways out (to give them time to get off the ice and then home) but these days the weather is with them in hours instead of days!

In N.Eurasia 'rains' are forming an ice layer over the Lichen that the Reindeer feed on leading to the herders to start castrating the males (they become bigger thereafter and better able to break through the ice layer to get to the food below). They also have lost many small , trout filled, lakes across the Tundra as the frozen bases melt out and the water seeps away. As with the Nomads of the world's deserts such spots were keenly remembered by the tribes/families, and their locations passed down over the generations, so it would seem that this, as well, is 'new' to these peoples.

Science (in both the N.Americas and Greenland) is at last utilising the collective knowledge of the locals to help with both their present studies and reconstructions of the changes so far.

Dismissing folklore would be a bit dubious I'd say, but on the other hand, I doubt folklore is an acceptable guide to the past. I gather that Nordic people have influenced the Greenlanders for at least 1000 years, and one of the major imports to Greenland has been ethyl alcohol in its many enjoyable forms. Even today, alcohol is a considerable problem in Greenland. I have it that in the almost perpetual darkness some places, they kept themselves merry with all manner of entertainment, which is probably where many of the traditional tales must have originated. They made up jokes too..........."what's and ig?.............a Greenland house without a loo!"

What seems pretty certain however is, that Greenland's climate has changed considerably several times since the beginning of the Holocene epoch, and we know from going through ancient rubbish tips in the Orkney Islands that when Skara Brae was inhabited a few thousand years ago, the surrounding waters were home to species of fish that today are not found north of Cornwall due to the present cooler sea temperature.

[Alan Robinson]

If you are interested doing the math check out the discussion here.

Something niggled me about CO2 at concentrations below 300 ppm being a heat sink, and above 300 ppm being a heat source. I couldn't see why that should be. Well I finally finished wading through the discussion, which incidentally wasn't very mathematical in my view. Never mind. What did strike me though was scienceofdoom's posting of March 8th 2010 at 9:04PM, where he or she suddenly decides to let us know that in deriving the curve you kindly posted, the lowest experimental starting point was in fact 280 ppm. There is therefore no basis at all from what I read to assume that below 300 ppm CO2 gives a negative radiative forcing. This discovery therefore contradicts what I put a few days ago, namely that based on CO2 levels in 1900, that carbon dioxide must have been moderating whatever it was that was raising the global temperature. Furthermore, though I found no quoted figures, scienceofdoom insinuates that the experiment's highest ppm was 1000, and not 1600.

It just goes to show what a little investigation reveals. This curve was derived by the IPCC. I should have thought that venerable body would have made plain its limitations, but then maybe they did, and the curve above is drawn by someone who simply plotted f(X) = 5.5ln(X/Xo) without knowing the function's domain. Notice that if both X and Xo = 300, then f(X) = 0, and incidentally, the discussion doesn't touch upon why the ratio X/Xo is relevant. It is simply taken for granted that it has merit, though what merit I cannot say yet. My conclusion is simply that before about 1950, carbon dioxide wasn't causing the atmosphere to heat.

The reason I put 300 ppm as a lower limit for the experimental data's validity is arbitrary, but from my work with parametric cubic splines, and also describing data sets using mathematical functions, I'd say the extreme hold points of such a data set cannot be relied upon, and certainly, extrapolation is most unreliable.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

Alan - thought you might find these sites useful.

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

>

You gave up?

No, just waiting for you to find a more appropriate thread for you to ask those questions in - my views on CO2 and AGW are not exactly relevant to Arctic ice.

[noiv]

Alan,

I strongly suggest you dive a bit deeper into Earth science and start making your conclusions from there. And I'm sorry for posting a graph and not explaining it. Look for example here: http://en.wikipedia..../Solar_constant (The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).) Greenhouse gases can not cool a planet by definition.

Jethro is quite right, questioning and answering climate science belongs to another thread.

Edit: This pdf sums it all up: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Edited August 2, 2011 by noiv

[Alan Robinson]

Alan - thought you might find these sites useful.

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

http://www.esrl.noaa...2_data_mlo.html

Thanks for that jethro. I was in fact turning over in my mind why a single set of atmospheric CO2 measurements from Hawaii should be thought representative of the entire atmosphere, and then I visited biomind.de, only to find that the method of determining atmospheric CO2 content is disputed. Now Ernst-Georg Beck, I see, is also into alternative medicine, which to my conservative way of thinking counts against him; but I have to say, his point of view seems very convincing. Apparently he thinks the IPCC analysis of ice core samples not the best method of establishing historical CO2 levels, and certainly, his description of CO2 variations according to locality seems most plausible.

What strikes me most though, is the difference between the historical CO2 curves in biomind.de and wikipedia. It can hardly surprise that there is much discussion among laymen when there is so much contradictory information for them to refer to.

[songster]

Something niggled me about CO2 at concentrations below 300 ppm being a heat sink, and above 300 ppm being a heat source.

So it should, because that's patent nonsense.

The graph you're quibbling about was drawn up to illustrate a simple principle: that CO2 acts logarithmically - i.e. a doubling of CO2 levels leads to the same change in radiative forcing, whether that's a change from 200-400 ppm CO2, a change from 400-800 ppm, or from 800-1600 ppm. The choice of zero point on the left-hand scale is arbitrary. It looks to me to have been set so zero corresponds to the pre-industrial level of CO2 (~300 ppm). That being so, the scale therefore approximates the change in radiative forcing due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.

Edited August 2, 2011 by songster

[Alan Robinson]

Jethro is quite right, questioning and answering climate science belongs to another thread.

I shall be the first to post this stuff in a climate science thread to stop cluttering this Arctic ice thread .............only.......I can find threads about volcanoes, earthquakes, climate in the past, sunshine, the atmosphere, UFOs, what the latest findings are and what's in the news, but not a specific climate science thread. With the exception of UFOs and earthquakes, I'd have thought the rest were all sub-topics of climate science, and if we shift the discussion to one of them, we'll be committing the same grave sin as we are here.

Any suggestions anyone as to where all these different sub-topics of climate science can come together for discussion?

[pottyprof]

Any suggestions anyone as to where all these different sub-topics of climate science can come together for discussion?

New thread for climate science discussions here.

[quest4peace]

Something similar to 2009 or 2010 is probably most likely.

Hi thanks for your reply I think most people would grab those years with both hands It is a massive crime that we have lost a lot of the oldest ice in the ARCTIC but I notice that there is more of a flutter when the ice is dropping like a stone, and all be it little rises are ignored?, i notice not many people have commented on the fact that we have had a bit of a levelling of the 2011 line. This september will be four years since 2007's heart attack inducing levels and yet (i hope i'm not proven wrong this year) we haven't been below it since (by september) even though i do see we were lowest on record earlier in the melt season :unsure: even though i've been reading, that each year since then, would only be a downward trend and we would of been well below by now or worse, ice free all together All these things are what us amateurs are relying on these sites to answer for us

Edited August 2, 2011 by quest4peace