Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

You can also let others think for you, rather than for yourself! 

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Damn right S.C.! I'd never tell a surgeon his business. I'd give it over to trust that he has spent a fair proportion of his life training in the field and then had a number of years practical experience to back up the 'book learning'.

Same with the folk like Prof Barber and Mark Serreze who have spent all of their adult life gaining knowledge around the topic (which is ,as you know, why I will look to them for advice and understanding if I'm stuck).

Nice to see we can agree on some portions of the subject S.C.!

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

You can also let others think for you, rather than for yourself! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

LOL.

Look where dumbing down has got us, SC...

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Very amusing.

Forcing the discussion back on topic....

The ice exent is currently 17% below the 1979-2000 norm for the start of December. We have just crept over 10M sq km extent against the norm of 12.2M

At the current rate of progress we will be at a new date minimum for ice extent within a week.

Clearly nothing unusual going on.....

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Anyway back on topic, don't you think that the unusual weather pattern we are enduring, is also responsible for the below average extent?

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Anyway back on topic, don't you think that the unusual weather pattern we are enduring, is also responsible for the below average extent?

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

You can also let others think for you, rather than for yourself! 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

LOL.

Look where dumbing down has got us, SC...

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

James Hansen, Michael Mann etc, etc. Yes your quite right Gandalf!

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Very amusing.

Forcing the discussion back on topic....

The ice exent is currently 17% below the 1979-2000 norm for the start of December. We have just crept over 10M sq km extent against the norm of 12.2M

At the current rate of progress we will be at a new date minimum for ice extent within a week.

Clearly nothing unusual going on.....

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I have my moments 

Anyway back on topic, don't you think that the unusual weather pattern we are enduring, is also responsible for the below average extent?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

To be honest I don't know for certain.  Clearly if the very cold air has been engulfing parts of Europe then the synoptics are favouring less cold air moving into parts of the Arctic.  if this was a solitary example of low ice extent then I would put it down to one-off factors such as unusual synoptics.  But it's not - the ice extent has been running at a lower level since the start of the daily records (2002) and the trend is not improving.  Stephen assures us that it is because of the lingering effects of the run of El Ninos delivering warmer waters into the Arctic.  When I point out that there is a similar degradation occurring in Hudson Bay, where there is little interaction with the oceans and therefore any supposed heat from La Ninas (if it's even there) cannot be a factor I get ignored - presumably because it is an inconvient truth that undermines his argument.

I would like nothing more than to see the Artic recovering.  The fact is that it is not.  The fact is that AGW models show exactly this sort of accelerated warming in the Arctic.  Maybe it's not the proverbial 'canary in the cage' but what if it is?

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

What about comparing it to pre 1979 norms? You cannot because there is no adequate data.

Yet that article blindly compares the current position to imagined trends over the past 2000 years. I call that irresponsible.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 

We do seem to have reached a point where you are claiming to have a theory which explains something for which you claim there is no data in the first place. That might also be considered irresponsible.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 

But on that basis AGW is well and truly bust then!

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

But on that basis AGW is well and truly bust then!

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

On that basis, Stephen claims it is well and truly bust. Again, this is on the basis of evidence he claims does not exist. It really is a most extraordinary position to take.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I trust that Speckledjim's timely post might give you pause to re-consider that remark.  I believe your stated requirement was a 30-year track record?....

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

So the 'deniers' are all being a little Arctic then (on thin ice?)............LOL

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

But on that basis AGW is well and truly bust then!

Originally Posted by: speckledjim 

I trust that Speckledjim's timely post might give you pause to re-consider that remark.  I believe your stated requirement was a 30-year track record?....

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Hold on a minute that's not proof for AGW, that just shows the state of play now. I could use the same graph as evidence for natural cylces! 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

It shows the state of play over 30 years....i could show a graph for any month of the year and they would be very similar

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Well G.T.W.'s prediction for the lowest ice extent ever recorded in Dec is well on track......

How do the folk who do not see a human hand in the changes up there explain this (with the background of our accumulated knowledge of the Arctic)? They seemed pretty Keen in late Sept/early Oct but have since fallen silent?

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Well G.T.W.'s prediction for the lowest ice extent ever recorded in Dec is well on track......

How do the folk who do not see a human hand in the changes up there explain this (with the background of our accumulated knowledge of the Arctic)? They seemed pretty Keen in late Sept/early Oct but have since fallen silent?

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf