Heh - now the fake sceptics can claim that the Arctic sea ice has recovered! How's the volume of the sea ice going btw?

What CeeBee won't report is this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.

Although this years melt 'may' have broken the 2007 record on it's own, one can see via these graphs, the huge impact the August storm had.

Just an indication on how rapid the recovery is;


day 256 (2012 lowest) - 2.23401 million sq. km

day 250 (2007 lowest) - 2.91994 million sq. km

day 291 (latest) - 4.63925 million sq. km

day 291 (2007) - 4.31363 million sq. km

day 291 (2011) - 4.73575 million sq. km

Source: Crysphere Today

Wonder if the IPCC models predicted such a fast recovery?


NORSEX showing 2012 pushing through 2011 levels (use link in post above)

Yes but CB will come back and try and tell you that it isn't as thick as it should be or some other straw grasping comment.

Swings and roundabouts in nature makes a mockery of cAGW meme again.

Yep that pretty much sums up Ceebees contribution to these forums.

Need a dummy with that CeeBee?

Yeah, talking about ice volume is clutching at straws.

Where have you been _PG_?
We missed your wide ranging intellectual input!

No his insistance that ice thickness wasn't thick enough to be seen by sat photos when it patently could be during his failed flamewar contribution on the opening of the north west passage is what i am talking about PG.

You're not making any sense Mike.

I think you better go find that post where I supposedly said that ice thickness wasn't thick enough to be seen by sat photos.

Good luck with that though because I have never made that claim.

It's no surprise that the sea ice is showing a fast recovery. Too bad that it's mostly thin first year ice now, which will quickly melt again next summer.

Some months ago I also tried to smooth the waters with CeeBee and asked everybody to cool the invective down.
It lasted for about two posts from Ceebee before everybody, including my self, who did not follow or who questioned his particular set of beliefs was again the subject of the usual hypocritical spray of utter bile from CeeBee.

I also tried ROM but it was useless, he has no consience or caring at all it seems!

The sceptics are now doing the usual bullying routine and making up stuff.

Try sticking to the thread topics without resorting to personal attacks and this place will be much nicer...

This post above by ROM is an example of sceptics inflaming the debate here. It is a veiled insult that was not necessary at all.

Maybe if you explain to everyone how a miniscule amount of gas, 0.038%, with 1000 times less energy than the oceans, causes warming, it would be much nicer.

The fact that it hasnt warmed for so long despite records increases in CO2 destroys the theory.

You have never answered it, nor will you, becasue we all know you dont have an answer.

First of all just because CO2 is a trace gas it does not mean it cannot have a large effect on the climate.

CO2 lets sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth, which causes the Earth to warm more than it would've without CO2.

Your claim that "it hasnt warmed for so long despite records increases in CO2 destroys the theory" is not true





http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

And here we go all over again. You are using adjusted data, here are the unadjusted versions, apart from GISS.



HADCRUT3 shows no warming for 16 years. Even GISS nothing for 12 years.

Can you see why CO2 has no impact, it has sky rocketed at biblical proportions since 1998.

Dont avoid it, tell everyone why the disconnect is there.

It's been well explained that the recent cool years due to La Ninas and sulphur particles from the recent burning of coal in Asia has temporarily over ridden the effects from CO2.

It's also been pointed out that 16 years is too short a time to see a trend. 30 years is the length of time to see a trend in the climate.

It's also been pointed out that cherry picking a start time when there was a record El Nino and an end time at the end of cool years from the La Ninas is not valid. Pick a different start year such as 1999 and you see a whole different picture.

Ok good. The the period of 1979-1997 is also to short then by that theory in the satellite records.

So get off these boards then and come back in 12 years.

Anthony-change of subject. I have been trying to register with the realworldweatherforum to try to get a less vitriolic view of things, but have not been successful. I went through required registration procedure but system kept dropping out when I tried to enter my details. What gives ???

I will pm you RWM..