Sea ice extent now the third lowest on record

[Chris]

Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[KittenKoder]

So now it's not melting too fast since a few weeks ago you said it was "the" lowest on record.

 

[Bern80]

Again this proves what exactley? We all get at this point that you want to try to prove to all of us it is getting warmer, with your daily updates of various whether phenomenon and events. It means NOTHING in terms of mans effect on it.

Again we get that it is getting warmer, but man's contribution to your dreaded CO2 now dubbed a polutant (really amazing considering said 'polutant' is essential to life on the planet) is statistically insignifant. Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 2 - 5 percent of this TRACE gas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Salt is absolutely essential for life. Now that we have established that, why don't you just down a quart of it and see what that does for you. There are many things that are essential for life which in too large a dose, can destroy life.

The warming that we are seeing today is the result of the GHGs that man is adding to the atmosphere. Every scientific society, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world states that. The physics of it was established in 1896. And the predictions of warming made then have come to past.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


Further reading

Three papers published in the past month have added important insight to our understanding of Arctic warming and sea ice decline. Elizabeth Hunke and Cecilia Bitz show that improved models can now reproduce the changes in sea ice extent and sea ice age that have occurred in the last 30 years. Ron Kwok and Drew Rothrock combine satellite data and submarine measurements to show an astonishing decline in sea ice thickness over the last 50 years. And Darrell Kaufman and colleagues show that recent warming has reversed a 2,000-year cooling trend in the Arctic, and that this cooling was what would be expected from slow changes in Earth's orbit. The recent changes cannot be explained by these natural factors.

Hunke, E. C., and C. M. Bitz. 2009. Age characteristics in a multidecadal Arctic sea ice simulation. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 114, No. C8, C08013 doi:10.1029/2008JC005186 22,

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock. 2009. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 36, No. 15, L15501 doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

Kaufman, D. S., D. P. Schneider, N. P. McKay, et al. 2009. Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science, p. 1236-1239. doi:10.1126/science.1173983.

 

[KittenKoder]

Salt does not "destroy life" ... it does prevent some plant life from growing, and some life forms need much more than we do. Saline is one of the building blocks, so is carbon. Without carbon and saline, all life would die.

 

[k2skier]

Salt does not "destroy life" ... it does prevent some plant life from growing, and some life forms need much more than we do. Saline is one of the building blocks, so is carbon. Without carbon and saline, all life would die.

reread his post, eat 5 lbs of it....

 

[Bern80]

Salt is absolutely essential for life. Now that we have established that, why don't you just down a quart of it and see what that does for you. There are many things that are essential for life which in too large a dose, can destroy life.

The warming that we are seeing today is the result of the GHGs that man is adding to the atmosphere. Every scientific society, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world states that. The physics of it was established in 1896. And the predictions of warming made then have come to past.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

First simply saying ALL this or ALL that agree is a bit absurd. Some do some don't. Some do believe because they think the evidence is there, many 'believe' for financial gain.

To put it to the question what you are saying is that ALL (except for these nobodies of course Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective ) these bodies believe that the 2 - 5% contribution to GHGs that man contibutes is a significant portion of the warming we're seeing, correct? That the 1.4 degree fahrenheit increase we have seen in the last 100 Years is mostly due to man?

 

[Bern80]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


Further reading

Three papers published in the past month have added important insight to our understanding of Arctic warming and sea ice decline. Elizabeth Hunke and Cecilia Bitz show that improved models can now reproduce the changes in sea ice extent and sea ice age that have occurred in the last 30 years. Ron Kwok and Drew Rothrock combine satellite data and submarine measurements to show an astonishing decline in sea ice thickness over the last 50 years. And Darrell Kaufman and colleagues show that recent warming has reversed a 2,000-year cooling trend in the Arctic, and that this cooling was what would be expected from slow changes in Earth's orbit. The recent changes cannot be explained by these natural factors.

Hunke, E. C., and C. M. Bitz. 2009. Age characteristics in a multidecadal Arctic sea ice simulation. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 114, No. C8, C08013 doi:10.1029/2008JC005186 22,

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock. 2009. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 36, No. 15, L15501 doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

Kaufman, D. S., D. P. Schneider, N. P. McKay, et al. 2009. Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science, p. 1236-1239. doi:10.1126/science.1173983.

Interesting stuff, but it doesn't prove anything. People of your ilk (non-scientist, global warming alarmists) don't do the actual scientists any favors. First, unless you are a member of all of those sites you posted thus allowing you to read the FULL test of each of the links you provided you certainly can't speak to the conclusions they made. I'm not sure how the person who write for the 'revered' ARCTIC SEA ICE NEWS can either. He concludes normal patterns of orbit can not account for the increased rate of melting. Not sure how he can do that considering none of the links provided make that conclusion (good scientists rarely conclude anything, rather they report observations). They simply state sea ice melting has accelerated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming- Introduction
Owner Plant Fossils of West Virginia - geocraft.com

These are the nobodies at "Global Warming, a Chilling Perspective". And, indeed, they are nobodies.

Private
Description This site totes itself as a learning resource. It is a science based website that has many different links to different earth science issues (pages they maintain themselves). They are private and have a "humans have not caused any problems - it is just a cycle" sort of view on climate change. It sucked. Bad.
Orientation/
Premise I couldn't discern any political premises or orientation in the website - they claim to be an educational website.
KM
Skeptics

 

[Bern80]

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming- Introduction
Owner Plant Fossils of West Virginia - geocraft.com

These are the nobodies at "Global Warming, a Chilling Perspective". And, indeed, they are nobodies.

Private
Description This site totes itself as a learning resource. It is a science based website that has many different links to different earth science issues (pages they maintain themselves). They are private and have a "humans have not caused any problems - it is just a cycle" sort of view on climate change. It sucked. Bad.
Orientation/
Premise I couldn't discern any political premises or orientation in the website - they claim to be an educational website.
KM
Skeptics

Oh, then I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to debunk the credibility of those cited (these are just a FEW of those mentioned). I'll wait.

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John R. Christy - Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.

Petr Chylek - Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Dr. William Gray - Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction


I don't get what your link is trying to say or what you are trying to say through the link. Is 'it sucked bad' your definiton of a qualitative analysis of the evidence provided? It does not refute anything found there and states no discernable political agenda. Crazy idea. TRY using your own brain and words to debunk it ya chicken shit.

 

[Oddball]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


Further reading

Three papers published in the past month have added important insight to our understanding of Arctic warming and sea ice decline. Elizabeth Hunke and Cecilia Bitz show that improved models can now reproduce the changes in sea ice extent and sea ice age that have occurred in the last 30 years. Ron Kwok and Drew Rothrock combine satellite data and submarine measurements to show an astonishing decline in sea ice thickness over the last 50 years. And Darrell Kaufman and colleagues show that recent warming has reversed a 2,000-year cooling trend in the Arctic, and that this cooling was what would be expected from slow changes in Earth's orbit. The recent changes cannot be explained by these natural factors.

Hunke, E. C., and C. M. Bitz. 2009. Age characteristics in a multidecadal Arctic sea ice simulation. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 114, No. C8, C08013 doi:10.1029/2008JC005186 22,

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock. 2009. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 36, No. 15, L15501 doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

Kaufman, D. S., D. P. Schneider, N. P. McKay, et al. 2009. Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science, p. 1236-1239. doi:10.1126/science.1173983.

Interesting stuff, but it doesn't prove anything. People of your ilk (non-scientist, global warming alarmists) don't do the actual scientists any favors. First, unless you are a member of all of those sites you posted thus allowing you to read the FULL test of each of the links you provided you certainly can't speak to the conclusions they made. I'm not sure how the person who write for the 'revered' ARCTIC SEA ICE NEWS can either. He concludes normal patterns of orbit can not account for the increased rate of melting. Not sure how he can do that considering none of the links provided make that conclusion (good scientists rarely conclude anything, rather they report observations). They simply state sea ice melting has accelerated.

OldRocksinthehead is a walking appeal to authority.

He's already admitted that the only way he'll change his mind on the AGW hoax is if all the other junk science peddlers recant first.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming- Introduction
Owner Plant Fossils of West Virginia - geocraft.com

These are the nobodies at "Global Warming, a Chilling Perspective". And, indeed, they are nobodies.

Private
Description This site totes itself as a learning resource. It is a science based website that has many different links to different earth science issues (pages they maintain themselves). They are private and have a "humans have not caused any problems - it is just a cycle" sort of view on climate change. It sucked. Bad.
Orientation/
Premise I couldn't discern any political premises or orientation in the website - they claim to be an educational website.
KM
Skeptics

Oh, then I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to debunk the credibility of those cited (these are just a FEW of those mentioned). I'll wait.

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John R. Christy - Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.

Petr Chylek - Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Dr. William Gray - Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction


I don't get what your link is trying to say or what you are trying to say through the link. Is 'it sucked bad' your definiton of a qualitative analysis of the evidence provided? It does not refute anything found there and states no discernable political agenda. Crazy idea. TRY using your own brain and words to debunk it ya chicken shit.

There are Phd Geologists that still do not accept Plate Tectonics. Given the amount of money that Lindzen has recieved from the Fossil Fuel people, and his continued insistance that smoking is harmless, I find the inclusion of him in those sceptical of Global Warming to be humourous. His Iris theory of a major negative feedback has been completely falsified by reality. Most of these people are scientists in their dotage. Not doing relevant research today at all.

Virtually all of the scientists dealing with climatology are stating that the primary factor in the present warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Again, all of the scientific societys, major universities, and national academies of science state that this is the case.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Sure do wish you'd make up your mind... Are we screwed or aren't we? What do the environmental wackos say will be happening next week? The story changes every other day it seems. Must have something to do with the days that they skip their medications or something... I recommend Prozac or Valium but you have to take it on a regular schedule or you will keep changing your mind about things or think up completely different stupid things to talk about. We haven't talked about saving the whales lately. What's up with that? Have they all been saved?

 

[Bern80]

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming- Introduction
Owner Plant Fossils of West Virginia - geocraft.com

These are the nobodies at "Global Warming, a Chilling Perspective". And, indeed, they are nobodies.

Private
Description This site totes itself as a learning resource. It is a science based website that has many different links to different earth science issues (pages they maintain themselves). They are private and have a "humans have not caused any problems - it is just a cycle" sort of view on climate change. It sucked. Bad.
Orientation/
Premise I couldn't discern any political premises or orientation in the website - they claim to be an educational website.
KM
Skeptics

Oh, then I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to debunk the credibility of those cited (these are just a FEW of those mentioned). I'll wait.

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John R. Christy - Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.

Petr Chylek - Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Dr. William Gray - Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction


I don't get what your link is trying to say or what you are trying to say through the link. Is 'it sucked bad' your definiton of a qualitative analysis of the evidence provided? It does not refute anything found there and states no discernable political agenda. Crazy idea. TRY using your own brain and words to debunk it ya chicken shit.

There are Phd Geologists that still do not accept Plate Tectonics. Given the amount of money that Lindzen has recieved from the Fossil Fuel people, and his continued insistance that smoking is harmless, I find the inclusion of him in those sceptical of Global Warming to be humourous. His Iris theory of a major negative feedback has been completely falsified by reality. Most of these people are scientists in their dotage. Not doing relevant research today at all.

Virtually all of the scientists dealing with climatology are stating that the primary factor in the present warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Again, all of the scientific societys, major universities, and national academies of science state that this is the case.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

What are the innacuracies in the link I presented? The math simply doesn't work out. We KNOW for a fact that more CO2 has a diminishing return on heat retention. We KNOW for a fact that the Earth climate cycles in spanning of thousands of years and 10 and of thousands of years. We KNOW for a fact that we would currently about 15,000 years into an 18,000 warming trend. Are you so naive that you believe we can actually stop the next ice age?

Again people like yourself are amazingly ignorant of what microscopic spec you are in terms of Earth history. Am I wrong that man only contributes 2-5% to the earth CO2 content? And yet you want us to believe that this single digit contribution to a gas that is about 4 thousands of our atmosphere is going to cause runaway global warming? Show me the science behind that if you want to persuade someone because the FACTS still remain yes it is getting warmer without our help and if history is any indicator, might get even warmer for a while (a while being a couple thousand years). Do you get that? A couple THOUSAND years. And yet morons like yourself believe that we will irreversibly change the earth in a relative fraction of a blink of an eye.

 

[Old Rocks]

What are the innacuracies in the link I presented? The math simply doesn't work out. We KNOW for a fact that more CO2 has a diminishing return on heat retention.

We most certainly do not know that for a fact. CO2 does not trap heat as if the atmosphere were a single layer, but as if it were multiple layers. See the American Institute of Physics site

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

We KNOW for a fact that the Earth climate cycles in spanning of thousands of years and 10 and of thousands of years. We KNOW for a fact that we would currently about 15,000 years into an 18,000 warming trend. Are you so naive that you believe we can actually stop the next ice age?

Those cycles are called the Milankovic Cycles, and we should be cooling now according to them. In fact, as demonstrated by the tree rings in the Arctic, the climate was cooling for about 2000 years untill we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere in the Industrial Revolution.

Again people like yourself are amazingly ignorant of what microscopic spec you are in terms of Earth history.

Now that is a funny statement. My major in college was Geology. I know much better than you what the depth of time means.


Am I wrong that man only contributes 2-5% to the earth CO2 content?

Yes, you are wrong. Man has contributed nearly 40% of the nearly 390 ppm of CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.

And yet you want us to believe that this single digit contribution to a gas that is about 4 thousands of our atmosphere is going to cause runaway global warming? Show me the science behind that if you want to persuade someone because the FACTS still remain yes it is getting warmer without our help and if history is any indicator, might get even warmer for a while (a while being a couple thousand years). Do you get that? A couple THOUSAND years. And yet morons like yourself believe that we will irreversibly change the earth in a relative fraction of a blink of an eye.

Climate Change - What is climate change?

Climate change controversies: a simple guide

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

 

[Bern80]

We most certainly do not know that for a fact. CO2 does not trap heat as if the atmosphere were a single layer, but as if it were multiple layers. See the American Institute of Physics site

This one is so basic it's stupid Rocks. We can agree that CO2 acts as a blanket trapping heat. So lets say we're really adding more to the layers we are putting on ever thicker blankets so to speak. It is almost a perfect parellel to a human using blankets to keep warm. if I throw more and more blankets on you aren't going to reach the point where you simply boil up. The maximum temperature you can reach is going to top out at some point regardless of the number of blankets you add.

Now that is a funny statement. My major in college was Geology. I know much better than you what the depth of time means.

It is funny because it makes it all the more perplexing that someone who claims to have some concept of geologic time relative to human time can be so easily duped into believing that man has obtained irreversible earth altering power in less than a geologic blink of an eye.

Part of this statment has been thoroughly debunked already. It admittedly uses SURFACE temperature as the means to show warming. It is known that these surface temperatures are exageratted in comparison to measurements by satelites precisely because they are on the surface where they are susceptible to other temperature factors such as the heat of building around them. Your link are fuirtther suspicious because they provide no citations of there own, they basically just say it's so. It is quite clear from the way the various 'misleading' articles are written that it is a group of people trying to prove AGW, again seeking out the evidence to prove something is hardly scientific as one will invariably fall into the trap of seeing what they want to see and discounting the rest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Satellite records? They have been around what? 30 years? Who the hell cares what satellite records show when discussing trends and long term situations of the Earth? They are not of any significant importance EXCEPT in regards the last 30 years. You have no records before then. Once again NUMBNUTS the poles were much warmer then now for over 20 years from the 20's to 40's. And there are still poles.

Another example of retardo at work.

 

[Old Rocks]

We most certainly do not know that for a fact. CO2 does not trap heat as if the atmosphere were a single layer, but as if it were multiple layers. See the American Institute of Physics site

This one is so basic it's stupid Rocks. We can agree that CO2 acts as a blanket trapping heat. So lets say we're really adding more to the layers we are putting on ever thicker blankets so to speak. It is almost a perfect parellel to a human using blankets to keep warm. if I throw more and more blankets on you aren't going to reach the point where you simply boil up. The maximum temperature you can reach is going to top out at some point regardless of the number of blankets you add.

Well, that is true, but we are very far from that point right now. And, when we reach that point, from past periods of rapid warming, the oceans will largely be dead, anoxic.

Now that is a funny statement. My major in college was Geology. I know much better than you what the depth of time means.

It is funny because it makes it all the more perplexing that someone who claims to have some concept of geologic time relative to human time can be so easily duped into believing that man has obtained irreversible earth altering power in less than a geologic blink of an eye.

From the beginning of the clathrate outgassing to the peak of heating at the end of the Permian is estimated to have taken only 8000 years. At the peak, the oceans were largely dead, anoxic.

Part of this statment has been thoroughly debunked already. It admittedly uses SURFACE temperature as the means to show warming. It is known that these surface temperatures are exageratted in comparison to measurements by satelites precisely because they are on the surface where they are susceptible to other temperature factors such as the heat of building around them. Your link are fuirtther suspicious because they provide no citations of there own, they basically just say it's so. It is quite clear from the way the various 'misleading' articles are written that it is a group of people trying to prove AGW, again seeking out the evidence to prove something is hardly scientific as one will invariably fall into the trap of seeing what they want to see and discounting the rest.

Various misleading articles written by all the leading climatologists, gelologists,and geophysists. Satellite data is what is being used to show the melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Satellite data is what is being used to show the rapid and accelerating melting of the glaciers worldwide. Satellite data is what is being used to demonstrate the enlargement of desert areas on all continents. Far from disproving the effects of global warming, the satellite data has backed up the accelerating effects that we are seeing right now.

And what is the rest that is being discounted? Care to show some articles that show that global warming is not happening, or that the GHGs are not creating the problem. I have thus far been shown exactly two that make all or part of these statements. While there have been thousands of articles published worldwide demonstrating the connection.

 

[Old Rocks]

Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Satellite records? They have been around what? 30 years? Who the hell cares what satellite records show when discussing trends and long term situations of the Earth? They are not of any significant importance EXCEPT in regards the last 30 years. You have no records before then. Once again NUMBNUTS the poles were much warmer then now for over 20 years from the 20's to 40's. And there are still poles.

Another example of retardo at work.

Sources?