No you are not getting away with it that easily it is this form of confused thinking that declares that a certain ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere will definitively result in 1.5C or 2C increases in Global Temperature (and the economic and literal fallout that ensues)

Tell us if it is so easy to work out what volume of sea ice disappeared yesterday with your extrapolations

and then I will get Mr Gore to pronounce his opinion on it in his own inimitable fashion

If you would like to know someone who can tell you what the Sea Ice looks like at it's edge the guys to speak to are currently trapped in Napier Bay on the north coast of Devon Island. With a bit of luck they will pack up and return home safely

p.s. The difference between 2007 and 2011 is statistically insignificant

and as you point out is heavily dependent on weather - not climate

Hoh dee Hoh... topic change, diversion, and good old Al Gore being made subject of the usual. Was the Ice matter settled than?

Let's finish the topic, David Authumns... what's the Polar Ice messaging to the world... do you really think it stands on it's own? Here's Global situation, not the first time shown, but with another



You see the amazing resemblance to 2007? Was that an El Nino year? We know 2011 is an La nina year, and she's working on a reprise.

Just tell the world slowly, double spaced lines if need be, how a less active sun, much less active you claim, though the data tells differently, can cause for there to be so much thinner ice. You need to understand that if Cryosat-2 would conclusively find say 10,000 cubic km more volume, for the pipe-dream department, there's still that decline that needs explaining. Those Joules must be coming from somewhere to do that, lest you're now able to melt the same amount of ice with less energy.

Food for thought, on Friday Night too!

--//--

P.S. Who says that Bremen is best of the list in the cherry pick, lest you want to compare the JAXA chart for extent with the JAXA chart for Area.

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

hmmm, yes, that definitely makes the concentration index even poorer than it was just minutes ago. Going ones, going twice, Mat.......

Wanna play a game of chess? Seen it recently... 2 guys on plastic chairs and a set layed out on the plastic table... in the surf at the edge of the beach... to stay cool... a priceless image of reality, and its officially not even the sub-tropics here. Up in Canada it's hot too... they could do same in Lake superior. http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NW_ophi0.png

Lots of red don't you think?

Oh, the chart, not the anomaly, but the real ones.

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NW_ophi0.png

Sorry, and now time to set the table for dinner.. we eat later here than in the UK... something to do with heat, so be save, don't let you be caught out with more mischief.

--//--

P.S., if that's a SOI/ENSO neutral state, what to expect when the boy pushes the girl to the side again?

On the Threshold of a Dream, Are You sitting Comfortable [Moody Blues, ca 1970], when I was already traveling to hone foreign language skills and you were probably still acquainting with the sandbox, though the English climate will not have been conducive to too frequent visits on what can be build on sand.

As for the Sea Ice topic, does not really matter which charts are taken, you don't though dictate which cherry picks to make, but I will humor you:

JAXA Area: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png

JAXA Extent: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Both from same source. They show the unstoppable decline and this combo showing conveniently the divergence there-off... the break up, the reduction of concentration depicted in this not first time posted chart:



Does that make you happy before the shuteye time's upon you?

So happens, Dr Jeff Masters, a real meteorologist, not a dabbler like Watts, did his periodic forecast report to include on the Arctic state of the day:

Seems he too noted that the situation is deteriorating further, sun low or no sun low [well, like 0.009% less then in 2003, but let's quickly skip past], and the Arctic Sea passages have opened, The Siberian Route weeks before the last record... good for the shipping companies, saving millions, in brief:
Emphasis mine.

What drives this predominantly, most scientists in the relevant fields, not doctors of medicine, not architects, not economists, not payrolled folk of the Heartland, George Marshall etc who sign petitions that it ain't true, is well you brought it up... CO2. It's still rising, vigorously, and when the permafrost goes, and it is already softening, then the trillions of tonnes of CH4, some ~23 times more powerful as greenhouse gas then CO2, will start to come up, all by itself, before it through chemical reactions will decay into elements such as CO2, long atmospheric resident [we know because of the isotope markers they are the ones that are increasing the ppmv in the air]. If what is referred to as the Clatrate Gun goes off, we'll be doing a replay of a mass extinction... there are so far 5 recorded through the ages, and one at least happened when the CH4/CO2 got very high... then when it comes about, we'll be running again to find another Oppenheimer to build us something so we can put a stop to it:



Food for thought, but not to all (To some it causes extra waking hours)

--//--

P.S. Oh yes, a CO2 chart... like that member growth chart that had a line showing with an upward curve [the ol ruler trick settled that], this atmospheric molecule ''good for plants, but not for those we like to grow food of'', is increasing exponentially. Can you see it, David Authumns?



... sleep tight and pleasant dreams... Can't remember if he ever used his Fez instead of a Top Hat, but Tommy Cooper did some superbly failing magic. We'll be needing stuff that actually works and can produce large amounts of steady energy... pebble bed nuclear reactors for instance... no electricity needed for pumps in case of emergency... they work on the passive cooling principle. We could already have had them in operation, no sun dependence, no wind dependence, no tidal or wave action dependence, no dirty coal plant dependence... estimated annual fatalities, directly and indirectly from burning coal [research task on google], far exceeding what all nuclear incidents and accidents have caused over the total time they've been in operation on all of the world. Ask the French, as the most successful deployer of this technology.

The heat in Texas is bad but drought is very bad and no relief in sight-- They Don’t Tell You: The Current Global Warming Trend is Over 300 Years Old
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2608687/posts