Perhaps someone on Buffoon Island used their thermometer to stir their cup of tea in between commercial breaks, of course


Makes sense, but perhaps there was plenty of snow and drift ice came that way. Snow could be melting underneath, but from a satellite you couldn't really tell, unless they used IR - if they did they might have dismissed some results as being too far away from normal to be real. Scientists/statisticians do this all the time, its really just junk research because their methods are fallible.



It's still the coldest winter in 30 years here! March is about 2 degrees warmer than Jan on average, and this year is not average. I expect the North Pole is a bit chillier at this time of year. We will see in a month or three.

Perhaps the sea ice just melts really quickly, so a day or so difference would not be noticed?
Most of an ice berg is below the water, so how accurate can the measurements be from above the water???


Not so sure about that!
The inherent problem with science is that it tends to be introverted; not only does it miss the big picture, it misses other smaller pictures that are essential for a detailed understanding of the subject matter. Scientists tend to be dismissive of others work, so anyone that bucks the trend is an easy target - you know, people like Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein... Unfortunately too many scientists try to paint a placid picture that fits some politically acceptable grand view of everything, instead of listing the facts and methods and letting people draw their own conclusions.

We are on the same hymn sheet skgiven

Keep watching that North Pole

Rest assured it's not just a wafer thin sheet the same size as last year.


and then there was this.....

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/ahlbeck_solar_activity.pdf


Everything in Climate Science doesn't boil down to CO2


CO2 is a bit part player.

Water Vapour has most of the bases covered. Then throw in the Volcanic Particulates and SO2. Then throw in the Sun's Activity, Changes in Albedo, Cloud Cover, Ocean Currents and Jet Streams and it's a heady mix not to mention the inclination and orbit changes of our Planet over time.

To think that we can control all of this through the adjustment of a few parts per million of an essential for life gas that makes up just 0.0388% of the total atmosphere

is the greatest fantasy

I don't get that second graph at all. Perhaps a title and description would have helped!

To me that graph looks like it is made up of different places around the world at different time periods strung together in a way to make it look like there is a rise in CO2.
How can you justify using CO2 levels in Hawaii to extend the CO2 levels in the South pole (measured in a different way, at a different time by different people).
How come there is no South pole, Siple or Adelieland levels shown at the right end of the graph?
How come no Hawaii or Antarctica levels are shown at the start?

Cherry picked data like that in your non-sourced graph undermines real research.

If I looked around the globe for evidence of temperature levels over the last 2100 years I could paint any picture I wanted by cherry picking data. I could collect all the data that indicates we are heading for a snowball Earth and make graphs with that data only, excluding all the other data, or do the opposite; argue that the earth will burn up by 2200.

Your interpretation of the graph obviously differs from mine.
I see a tread in the ice core measurements. They are all the same!

I also see a tread in the amount of CO2 on top of the Volcano; its rising, as is the volcano!


You can measure Carbon amounts and proportionalities in last years snow fall; for 59 of the last 60years - but you chose to display a graph with cherry picked data from the top of a volcano!

Per chance did their measuring instruments improve in that time?

See if there are any major CO2 differences caused by the volcano. Go ahead. Pick them out.