July sea ice second lowest ever

[edthecynic]

Again we see how CON$ deliberately deceive by telling just enough truth and then shutting up. What you left out was the "intense peer review" was NEGATIVE!!!

A perfect example of why is the lie highlighted in blue. The land based temp trend (blue line) splits the two satellite trends (red and green lines) right down the middle.

Noting Ed's post and that he blew off a peer reviewed scientific report in favor of posting more computer manufactured graphs most likely from propagandists.

And thanking you, IanC, for keeping it reasonable.

Nobody with a brain thinks this stuff should not be studied. Nobody with a brain thinks that climate research should not be done or that whatever results are honestly produced should not be widely reported. An open mind is essential.

But anybody with a brain has to know that data produced by those whose funding depends on the data should be verified and verified and verified again before that data should be trusted as the last word.

And anybody with a brain has to know that there are politics and opportunistic motives built into all this stuff that simply cannot be blown off or dismissed as irrelevant.

By all means lets continue the research and if, and only IF, the data re AGW is confirmed by credible scientists who don't have a dog in the fight, THEN we should figure out what is the best way to deal with that. And IF the data shows that we are into a major climate shift, THEN we should figure out how to best help people adjust to that.

Otherwise, I am not willing to hand over my personal liberties, opportunities, choices, options, etc. for national or international policy that would control all of those based on what is most probably faulty or even junk science. And I am not willing to consign whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty based on what is most probably faulty or junk science either.

Of course, you again dishonestly blow off the fact that the peer review was negative and precisely because it was NOT a scientific study, in fact, the coordinator of the "study" is an economist!!!

"Anyone with a brain" knows that the red line in the graph comes from the most famous deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH.

Again, CON$ refuse to believe any data that goes against their religious dogma no matter who the source.

Ed- why are you using the new hockey stick graph? What happened to the old one that didn't show the MWP and the Little Ice Age? And you say all the lines are independent analysis but you don't really have a clue as to the data involved in making them or the overlap of data or the preferential weighting of specific data sets.
That is the point the canadian economist was making. All we see is the graph and the methodologies are hidden away. Why are some tree rings used and heavily weighted while others are discounted or ignored?

Jus sayin...

Oh Baloney, just saying.

All the data and methodology is readily available.

Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991):
[abstract] [DOI] Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
(blue 1000-1980):
[abstract] [full text] Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965):
[abstract] Crowley, Thomas J. and Thomas S. Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. ; Modified as published in [abstract] [DOI] Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
(lightest blue 1402-1960):
[abstract] [DOI] Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992):
[abstract] [DOI] Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
(yellow 200-1980):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.
(orange 200-1995):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
(red-orange 1500-1980):
[abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
(red 1-1979):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
(dark red 1600-1990):
[abstract] [DOI] Oerlemans, J.H. (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677.

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre.

 

[Oddball]

Was only a matter of time before we got to see the entirely debunked hockey puck graph as "proof".

Good job.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was only a matter of time before we got to see the entirely debunked hockey puck graph as "proof".

Good job.

Yeah. On a global warming thread it is as predictable as Godwin's Law or Foxfyre's Law of W on the political threads.

 

[Gadawg73]

And maybe you'll one day read the literature that the Park Service provides for the touristas that quite clearly states that the glaciers in Glacier National Park have been melting since at least the 1850's. And yes I've been there too!

West, you strike me as intelligent.
How come you do not post the FACTS?
You damn well know the MELT RATE from 1900 forward is far faster, a hell of a lot faster than the melt rate from the 1850s -1900.
Why is that West and how come you conveniently left that out?
And how come the MELT RATE for almost all other glaciers worldwide is at the same pattern? A faster melt rate from 1900 forward than ANY OTHER TIME EVER.
You do know they do ice core research from samples, don't you? And you do know that ice core data is undisputed. How can you dispute that?
The facts are that after the industrial revolution and hot smoke entering the atmosphere glaciers melt faster. Go and put your hand over your car exhaust and tell me if that is hot or coldand what comes out and what color it is.
Go out and put black soot over ice or snow and tell me with a straight face that it does not melt astronomically faster.
Time to wade through the BS.

Yes the melt rate is faster. But, the reason for the melt rate being faster is time from the Little Ice Age. At the end of the Little Ice Age the glaciers in the park began melting. As time progressed the glaciers melted faster. There would be periods where the ice would accumulate and then the retreat would continue. The fact that the whole areas is still isostatically rebounding from the weight of ice that had been upon it prooves that it was warmer than today because even Greenland is still bouncing back. That means there was less ice on Greenland too.

These are facts. This is not anecdotal "I saw it in 1938 and the ice is lower now than then." The fact reamins that it takes a ridiculously long time to melt glacial ice sheets.
The alarmists and you clearly can't wrap your head around the fact that the Earth exists in a time frame that is far longer han humans. Just like we live our lives at a rate far slower than cats and dogs.

It has been calculated that if the temps were to remain as high as they were in 1998 it would take 16,000 years to melt the ice sheet on Greenland. Here's a little math question for you. Assume you live to the grand old age of 100, what percentage of that 16,000 years would your whole life be?

That is what you have to take into consideration. We know that the world operates on cycles that take hundreds of years. We know that there are cycles that take thousands of years. Those are facts. Man's lifetime is a mere blip in the life of the planet.

So NASA, DOD, NOAA and the CIA are all wrong.
Nope.

 

[Old Rocks]

I really don't know what Westwall is other than a liar. He claims to be a geologist, but has little knowledge of the science. He makes many claims that sound like an adolescent.

And he posts junk science blogs instead of peer reviewed articles in support of his ridiculous claims.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the intensely peer reviewed Indpendent Summary for Policymakers, much of the IPCC report is supported and some is disputed due to what appears to be 'cherry picking' of data to include. The ISPM is not intended to discredit anybody, but rather keep everything in perspective. Emphasis mine:

Their most recent conclusion:

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.

The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding
data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a
variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth's climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive
as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
Independent Summary for Policymakers

Peer reviewed? By whom?

Fraser Institute - SourceWatch

Funding
An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [1]

The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, according to a 2000 letter found in the tobacco industry documents.[2]

In 2003 Fraser Institute income was $6,620,038. In its annual report it discloses that 52% was from unspecified foundations, 38% from unspecified "organizations" (presumably corporations) and only 10% from individuals.

"During the year, the Institute approached prospective donors to support over 50 specific projects including student seminars, teachers’ workshops, the elementary and secondary school report cards, environmental studies, aboriginal studies, globalization studies, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, fiscal studies, economic freedom, managing risk and regulation, pharmaceutical and health care studies, CANSTATS, and democratic reform," it states in its 2003 annual report. [3]

While ExxonMobil discloses in it annual statements that it contributed $60,000 to the organisation to work on "Climate Change", the Fraser Institute does not explicitly disclose the contribution. [4]

According to Media Transparency between 1985 and 2003 the Fraser Institute has received 30 grants totalling $ 403,301 (unindexed for inflation) from the following U.S. foundations:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Charles G. Koch Family Foundation
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Carthage Foundation [5]

 

[Foxfyre]

Sourcewatch will have to divulge its sources to persuade me to believe at face value anything it says about anybody. Because Sourcewatch never met a liberal or liberal organization it doesn't like or a conservative or conservative organization that it does like, and because so much of the language etc. they use corresponds with language in George Soros funded operations, I'm still looking for a connection there. Haven't found one, but my gut tells me it is there.

Meanwhile

In the "about" on the ISPM site:
"Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility. Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.

Founded in 1974, we are an independent research and educational organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto, and international partners in over 70 countries. Our work is financed by tax-deductible contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations. In order to protect its independence, the Institute does not accept grants from government or contracts for research.

As far as peer reviewed by whom:
REVIEWERS TO DATE:
Alberto Montanari Hydrology University of Bologna Italy
Anastasios Tsonis Mathematics University of Wisconsin USA
Anthony Lupo Climatology University of Missouri USA
Arthur S. deVany Mathematics University of California-Irvine USA
Barrie Jackson Chemical Engineering Queen's University Canada
Bjarne Andersson Thermodynamics Niels Bohr Institute Denmark
Boris Winterhalter Oceanography Geological Survey of Finland Finland
Chris deFreitas Climatology University of Auckland New Zealand
David Deming Paleoclimatology University of Oklahoma USA
David Legates Climatology University of Delaware USA
Demetris Koutsoyiannis Hydrology University of Athens Greece
Dev Niyogi Climatology Purdue University USA
Douglas Hoyt Solar Physics Raytheon Corp. (Retired) USA
Eduardo Zorita Paleoclimatology GKSS Institute of Coastal Research Germany
Einar Sletten Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Garth Paltridge Atmospheric science University of Tasmania Australia
Gosta Walin Oceanography Goteborg University Sweden
Harry Lins Hydrology United States Geological Survey USA
John Maunder Climatology WMO Commission for Climatology (ret'd) New Zealand
Keith Hage Meteorology University of Alberta Canada
Larry Hulden Biology Finnish Museum of Natural History Finland
Lena Hulden Historical Biology University of Helsinki Finland
Marcel Leroux Climatology University of Lyon France
Nicola Scaffeta Solar Physics Duke University USA
Oddbjorn Engvold Physics University of Oslo Norway
Olav Kvalheim Physical Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Ole Humlum Physical Geography University of Oslo Norway
Olev Trass Chemical Engineering University of Toronto Canada
Oliver Frauenfeld Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Pat Michaels Climatology Virginia Tech USA
Peter Robinson Meteorology University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill USA
Peter Stilbs Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Sweden
Piia Post Meteorology Univ of Tartu Estonia
Richard Lindzen Climatology Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
Ramesh Kriplani Meteorology Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology India
Richard McNider Meteorology University of Alabama USA
Robert Balling Climatology Arizona State University USA
Robert Carter Paleoclimatology James Cook University Australia
Robert S. Knox Physics University of Rochester USA
Terence Mills Statistics Loughbourough UK
Thomas N. Chase Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Timothy Patterson Paleoclimatology Carleton University Canada
William Alexander Engineering University of Pretoria South Africa
William Gray Meteorology Colorado State University USA

Nobody is 'peer reviewing' the stuff Sourcewatch puts out though, or at least they're not divulging any names.

 

[skookerasbil]

Was only a matter of time before we got to see the entirely debunked hockey puck graph as "proof".

Good job.

Oddball bro......awesome, awesome avatar!!!!!!!

Oh........and Yo Chris...........you didnt post up enough multiples of your original point in this thead. Ussually, you post those up at least a dozen times/thread!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about these faux graphs anymore............

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody cares about these faux graphs anymore............

Well that's not quite corect Snooker. The ones who keep posting them again. . .and again. . .and again. . .and again. . .and (etc.). . .seem to be very fond of them. That's a kind of caring.

 

[Old Rocks]

Was only a matter of time before we got to see the entirely debunked hockey puck graph as "proof".

Good job.

Ain't never been debunked, idiot child. Does the fact that the National Academy of Sciences chooses to publish this, rather than the nutjobs that you get your facts from bother you at all?

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Nobody cares about these faux graphs anymore............

Well that's not quite corect Snooker. The ones who keep posting them again. . .and again. . .and again. . .and again. . .and (etc.). . .seem to be very fond of them. That's a kind of caring.

For the same reasons that real scientists use them. They are as correct as anything we have at present. Of course, they do not fit the ideology of the nutjobs here that prefer to live in an alternative reality, but then, they would not recognize science in any case.

 

[Oddball]

Was only a matter of time before we got to see the entirely debunked hockey puck graph as "proof".

Good job.

Ain't never been debunked, idiot child. Does the fact that the National Academy of Sciences chooses to publish this, rather than the nutjobs that you get your facts from bother you at all?

It's been debunked eight ways from Sunday....It's just that the Vatican of Warmist Moonbats doesn't let in news from the outside world.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sourcewatch will have to divulge its sources to persuade me to believe at face value anything it says about anybody. Because Sourcewatch never met a liberal or liberal organization it doesn't like or a conservative or conservative organization that it does like, and because so much of the language etc. they use corresponds with language in George Soros funded operations, I'm still looking for a connection there. Haven't found one, but my gut tells me it is there.

Meanwhile

In the "about" on the ISPM site:
"Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility. Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.

Founded in 1974, we are an independent research and educational organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto, and international partners in over 70 countries. Our work is financed by tax-deductible contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations. In order to protect its independence, the Institute does not accept grants from government or contracts for research.

As far as peer reviewed by whom:
REVIEWERS TO DATE:
Alberto Montanari Hydrology University of Bologna Italy
Anastasios Tsonis Mathematics University of Wisconsin USA
Anthony Lupo Climatology University of Missouri USA
Arthur S. deVany Mathematics University of California-Irvine USA
Barrie Jackson Chemical Engineering Queen's University Canada
Bjarne Andersson Thermodynamics Niels Bohr Institute Denmark
Boris Winterhalter Oceanography Geological Survey of Finland Finland
Chris deFreitas Climatology University of Auckland New Zealand
David Deming Paleoclimatology University of Oklahoma USA
David Legates Climatology University of Delaware USA
Demetris Koutsoyiannis Hydrology University of Athens Greece
Dev Niyogi Climatology Purdue University USA
Douglas Hoyt Solar Physics Raytheon Corp. (Retired) USA
Eduardo Zorita Paleoclimatology GKSS Institute of Coastal Research Germany
Einar Sletten Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Garth Paltridge Atmospheric science University of Tasmania Australia
Gosta Walin Oceanography Goteborg University Sweden
Harry Lins Hydrology United States Geological Survey USA
John Maunder Climatology WMO Commission for Climatology (ret'd) New Zealand
Keith Hage Meteorology University of Alberta Canada
Larry Hulden Biology Finnish Museum of Natural History Finland
Lena Hulden Historical Biology University of Helsinki Finland
Marcel Leroux Climatology University of Lyon France
Nicola Scaffeta Solar Physics Duke University USA
Oddbjorn Engvold Physics University of Oslo Norway
Olav Kvalheim Physical Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Ole Humlum Physical Geography University of Oslo Norway
Olev Trass Chemical Engineering University of Toronto Canada
Oliver Frauenfeld Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Pat Michaels Climatology Virginia Tech USA
Peter Robinson Meteorology University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill USA
Peter Stilbs Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Sweden
Piia Post Meteorology Univ of Tartu Estonia
Richard Lindzen Climatology Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
Ramesh Kriplani Meteorology Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology India
Richard McNider Meteorology University of Alabama USA
Robert Balling Climatology Arizona State University USA
Robert Carter Paleoclimatology James Cook University Australia
Robert S. Knox Physics University of Rochester USA
Terence Mills Statistics Loughbourough UK
Thomas N. Chase Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Timothy Patterson Paleoclimatology Carleton University Canada
William Alexander Engineering University of Pretoria South Africa
William Gray Meteorology Colorado State University USA

Nobody is 'peer reviewing' the stuff Sourcewatch puts out though, or at least they're not divulging any names.

LOL. So that is your definition of peer review.

 

[DiveCon]

Sourcewatch will have to divulge its sources to persuade me to believe at face value anything it says about anybody. Because Sourcewatch never met a liberal or liberal organization it doesn't like or a conservative or conservative organization that it does like, and because so much of the language etc. they use corresponds with language in George Soros funded operations, I'm still looking for a connection there. Haven't found one, but my gut tells me it is there.

Meanwhile

In the "about" on the ISPM site:
"Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility. Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals.

Founded in 1974, we are an independent research and educational organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto, and international partners in over 70 countries. Our work is financed by tax-deductible contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations. In order to protect its independence, the Institute does not accept grants from government or contracts for research.

As far as peer reviewed by whom:
REVIEWERS TO DATE:
Alberto Montanari Hydrology University of Bologna Italy
Anastasios Tsonis Mathematics University of Wisconsin USA
Anthony Lupo Climatology University of Missouri USA
Arthur S. deVany Mathematics University of California-Irvine USA
Barrie Jackson Chemical Engineering Queen's University Canada
Bjarne Andersson Thermodynamics Niels Bohr Institute Denmark
Boris Winterhalter Oceanography Geological Survey of Finland Finland
Chris deFreitas Climatology University of Auckland New Zealand
David Deming Paleoclimatology University of Oklahoma USA
David Legates Climatology University of Delaware USA
Demetris Koutsoyiannis Hydrology University of Athens Greece
Dev Niyogi Climatology Purdue University USA
Douglas Hoyt Solar Physics Raytheon Corp. (Retired) USA
Eduardo Zorita Paleoclimatology GKSS Institute of Coastal Research Germany
Einar Sletten Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Garth Paltridge Atmospheric science University of Tasmania Australia
Gosta Walin Oceanography Goteborg University Sweden
Harry Lins Hydrology United States Geological Survey USA
John Maunder Climatology WMO Commission for Climatology (ret'd) New Zealand
Keith Hage Meteorology University of Alberta Canada
Larry Hulden Biology Finnish Museum of Natural History Finland
Lena Hulden Historical Biology University of Helsinki Finland
Marcel Leroux Climatology University of Lyon France
Nicola Scaffeta Solar Physics Duke University USA
Oddbjorn Engvold Physics University of Oslo Norway
Olav Kvalheim Physical Chemistry University of Bergen Norway
Ole Humlum Physical Geography University of Oslo Norway
Olev Trass Chemical Engineering University of Toronto Canada
Oliver Frauenfeld Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Pat Michaels Climatology Virginia Tech USA
Peter Robinson Meteorology University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill USA
Peter Stilbs Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Sweden
Piia Post Meteorology Univ of Tartu Estonia
Richard Lindzen Climatology Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA
Ramesh Kriplani Meteorology Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology India
Richard McNider Meteorology University of Alabama USA
Robert Balling Climatology Arizona State University USA
Robert Carter Paleoclimatology James Cook University Australia
Robert S. Knox Physics University of Rochester USA
Terence Mills Statistics Loughbourough UK
Thomas N. Chase Meteorology University of Colorado USA
Timothy Patterson Paleoclimatology Carleton University Canada
William Alexander Engineering University of Pretoria South Africa
William Gray Meteorology Colorado State University USA

Nobody is 'peer reviewing' the stuff Sourcewatch puts out though, or at least they're not divulging any names.

LOL. So that is your definition of peer review.

it looks to be a rather diverse group

 

[Chris]

Even the Petroleum News is reporting it...

July Arctic ice second lowest on record

The extent of the sea ice cover in the Arctic in July was the second lowest for that month since satellite ice observations began in 1979, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Aug. 4. The ice extent had reached a record low in June, but stormy, cloudy and relatively cool July weather slowed the ice melt, pushing the end-of-July ice area above that in July 2007, the year that experienced a record breaking sea-ice minimum in September.

July Arctic ice second lowest on record - August 15, 2010 - Petroleum News

 

[DiveCon]

Even the Petroleum News is reporting it...

July Arctic ice second lowest on record

The extent of the sea ice cover in the Arctic in July was the second lowest for that month since satellite ice observations began in 1979, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Aug. 4. The ice extent had reached a record low in June, but stormy, cloudy and relatively cool July weather slowed the ice melt, pushing the end-of-July ice area above that in July 2007, the year that experienced a record breaking sea-ice minimum in September.

July Arctic ice second lowest on record - August 15, 2010 - Petroleum News

key words: ON RECORD
how long is the record?

 

[Old Rocks]

Key words, how fucking dumb can you get, Dive?

Once again you demonstrate the idiocy of an ideologically driven veiw of reality. The ice goes, the climate will undergo a major change. One that will make the crop losses of this year appear minor.

Well, the price of beer is going up by as much as 40% because of the grain harvest damage. Now that might get your attention.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems to me he's being f**king reasonable.

Numbnuts use "ON RECORD" as some kind of mystical prophesy or red flag that the RECORD is something significant.

Then you see that the RECORD is a 30 year period which, in climate science, isn't really even measurable.

 

[westwall]

Key words, how fucking dumb can you get, Dive?

Once again you demonstrate the idiocy of an ideologically driven veiw of reality. The ice goes, the climate will undergo a major change. One that will make the crop losses of this year appear minor.

Well, the price of beer is going up by as much as 40% because of the grain harvest damage. Now that might get your attention.

Dive will never approach your level of ignorance nor religious faith there old fraud. James Weddell, while captaining the sealer Jane, attained the most southerly point ever attained by ship in the year 1823 of 74 degrees 15 minutes South and 34 degrees 16 minutes 45 seconds West.

That is at least 200 miles further south than any other ship has been able to penetrate. The Antarctic was exceptionally warm in that year. I would hazard a guess that the Arctic was likewise absent ice that year as well. Sadly no one bothered to travel north that year so we don't know. So it is merely a supposition.