On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

"CRM" wrote in
:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no
sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was
Chuck G pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi
thtr end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last
couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for
1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction
in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the
article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it
before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to
global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank
account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned.

You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it
was first published.

Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by
observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea
ice based on statistical average.

35,000 square miles to be exact. :)

This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point.

No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ars-overnight/

--

"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin to slit throats."

H. L. Mencken

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
m:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

"CRM" wrote in
:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no
sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was
Chuck G pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi
thtr end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last
couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for
1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction
in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the
article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it
before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect
to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank
account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned.

You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it
was first published.

Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by
observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in
sea ice based on statistical average.

35,000 square miles to be exact. :)

This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point.

No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway-
500
000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/


But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different
research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly
different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and
oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not
explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a
legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his
question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a
technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he
did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as
far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's
reference.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

"CRM" wrote in
t:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no
sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was
Chuck G pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi
thtr end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last
couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for
1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction
in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the
article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it
before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect
to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank
account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned.

You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it
was first published.

Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by
observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in
sea ice based on statistical average.

35,000 square miles to be exact. :)

This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point.

No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway-
500
000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/


But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different
research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly
different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and
oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not
explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a
legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his
question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a
technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he
did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as
far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's
reference.

Well, then how about this?

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm

Good enough for you?

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
m:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
m:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote:

"CRM" wrote in
:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be
no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it
was Chuck G pushing this BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's
historical levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834



I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi
thtr end.jpg

or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6

strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last
couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for
1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing
reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented
in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer
look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening
with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were
of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more
concerned.

You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after
it was first published.

Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by
observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in
sea ice based on statistical average.

35,000 square miles to be exact. :)

This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a
point.

No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway-
500
000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/


But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph.
Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols,
possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples
and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does
not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is
a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his
question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a
technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he
did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow,
as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the
OP's reference.

Well, then how about this?

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...Same+Level+as+
1979/articl
e13834.htm

Good enough for you?


That is the article that started this whole thing, and what I thought
was the original poster's misinterpretation of the data. It doesn't
have anything to do with the accuracy of the data, or political
manipulation thereof. The graph shown on the upper right in that
article is the graph of global sea ice area from 1979-present available
from the University of Illinois cryosphere website (link posted above).
Take a good look at the graph (you can click on it to enlarge it in the
dailytech article). The upper dark blue line is the total area of sea
ice on the planet (daily data); the upper light blue line is the daily
average sea ice cover calculated for the 21 year period 1979-2000 (the
baseline); the lower red line is just the difference between the daily
value and the baseline value. Now, as I read the graph, it is true that
on 1 January, 1980, and 1 January, 2009 the total sea ice area on Earth
was the same, give or take a few thousand square miles. In fact, the
sea ice area was above average for the early part of 2008. I am not
arguing that. But take a look at the lower red line, and look at the
trend over the last five years. Heck, take a look at the dark blue line
(the raw data) - notice the maximum sea ice extent. Between 1979 and
2000 the annual maximum sea ice extent was over 22 million square
kilometers each year, sometimes by a million square kilometers, while in
five of the last eight years the annual maximum was less than 22 million
square kilometers, and only just barely above 22 million for the other
three. To me, this suggests that something is happening to reduce the
area of sea ice over the last ten years - not all at once, and not every
day, but certainly on average it seems to me that something is going on.


Just look at the data. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet
next week. Alarmism is stupid. But I think it is equally silly to
ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists
overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points.

(Note: I have no vested interest in this topic - I no skin in the game
whatsoever. I just have a purely intellectual interest in what is going
on, and I like data. I'd also like to know how to fit and install a
breasthook and whether I should use thole pins or oarlocks for the skiff
that is taking shape in the garage, and what weeks of sub-freezing
temperatures will do to the cure of PL Premium polyurethane adhesive and
its subsequent bond strength...)

On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote:

Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet
next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to
ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists
overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points.

Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific
understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in
the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased
sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps
and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle,
and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to
point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists.

But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead
some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is
driven by monetary or political factors.

wrote in news:5328feb2-ad9a-432c-b740-
:

On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote:

Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet
next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to
ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists
overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points.

Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific
understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in
the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased
sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps
and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle,
and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to
point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists.

But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead
some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is
driven by monetary or political factors.



As you say, considering raw data without an understanding of what else is
happening leads to misunderstanding, and the 11 year sunspot cycle does
affect the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. On the other hand, the
problem is not simple; for example, the sea ice data do not show much of an
11-year cycle. There were solar output minima in 1985, 1996, and 2007
(from the graph of solar irradiance at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) and each of those years had a
slightly below-average sea ice cover (to well below-average, in the case of
2007) (from the graph on the UI cryosphere site), which is exactly opposite
to what one might expect. Indeed, looking at the graph on Wikipedia, the
solar output appears to vary by about a tenth of a percent from sunspot low
to sunspot high (that is, by a little over one watt/square meter) which
doesn't seem like a whole lot. It is indeed something of a conundrum,
which I suppose is why there is controversy.