Well its a new year so time for a new thread and let the old one be retired.

My main sources of data for following developments are

Cryosphere Today

NSIDC report page

NOAA Sea Surface Temperature page

edited to add poll, poll closes at end of January.

Place your bets, the most the Arctic has had for decades was 8 Mkm so I stopped there. How much ice will be in the Arctic Ocean on September 15, 2009 or whenever the minimum for the year happens? Choices are 0-8 and will be counted as 8 = 8 or more, 0=0 to .99 and 1= 1 to 1.99 and so on.

Edit as per Bas's point. The graph I am basing the poll on is sea ice extent which can be found Cryosphere Extent Sometimes it doesn't get updated as fast as the others but you can see all the years up to and including 2008 summer extent, which is what I based my poll on.

http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=sst
Would not "Current artic ice conditions" be a less biased title for the thread? Also this link could be useful.

The thread gets unwieldy long if we don't start a new one every year or so, and if your searching the archives for info looking for arctic sea ice 2009 get you here whereas other searches will bring up a list of possible threads.

Thanks for the other NOAA link

Good idea Tanada, and I wonder what this year is going to bring when it comes to melting seaice. Maybe we could start this thread of by making some predictions or guesses to what will be the minimum extent of the sea ice in the arctic, in which case my "bet" would be that we'll see a new record at 2 million sq km, according to cryosphere today.

Whoah! That would be half the old record, I think you got sq Miles mixed up with sq Kilometers

I will go out on a limb and guess 4 Mkm, which is 1.5 less than the 2007 record. I am thinking that with the global slow down dimming will be less so melting will be more.

Mother Nature has created global warming and global cooling for millions of years. How is it any different now?

The only difference is now we are able to record it and keep track.

The only substantial difference is, we influence both via the particulates and gasses we emit into the atmosphere and we can ponder the effects. Also if we decide we are amplifying or retarding an effect we can act in an intelligent way to acheive the result we desire.

Is it me, or there's been a lot of new Climate Change Sceptics signing up lately? I'm tired of giving that answer, and reading either you, Cid or a few other senior posters writing it as well. The media hype did get to them.

Anyway: the Met Office says that despite La Nina, it's going to be hot. The least we've had was 4 MKm, in 2007. We're coming from a slightly colder year, that might help a bit. I voted 4.

So I was thinking sea Ice area, but you made the poll for sea ice extend. So I voted 2 while in the case of extend I might have voted 3 or 4. Maybe you should put the definition of extend in your poll/original post before people make the same mistake I did. Good idea on the poll btw

Maybe you didn't go to grade school but even 3rd graders have been taught the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

What do you think stopped the ICE AGE and warmed the climate then? I am sure it wasn't SUVs or McMansions.

Definition of Sheeple: people who believe something and ignore the overall information

Look at the data or read a 3rd grade science book.

AAA if you deny that climate change is progressing faster now than at the end of the iceage due to human influence, please do so on another thread, plenty of which are better suited for such a discussion: this thread is for watching the arctic sea ice.

As said before,



Can't be bothered to write. It's all there, really.


EDIT: Sorry, Bas. Hit the "post" button before seeing your answer. Please feel free to delete it.

Yeah, like in this post. Good luck locking horns, guys.

Perhaps - think now - it's not simply a question of "signing up".
Perhaps - stay with me - it's a question of "generally spreading belief."

The poll says it all - the polled members of peak(globalwarming).com are as all-over-the-board and CLUELESS about CC as are the "experts."

If you want to have any credibility whatsoever, start by getting a prediction correct now and again.

Let's see. Peak Oil - we have predicted a flattening of supply.

Check.

We have predicted price volatility.

Check.

We have predicted less and less discovery despite better and better tech and more investment.

Check.

Now let's try it on the voodoo black magic religion known as the "Cult of the Climate Changers."

You have predicted that

CO2 emisisions and global warming have causative relationship.
FAIL! (correlation weak).

That the world is warming and will continue to warm.
FAIL (this decade is cooling).

That the Arctic ice will disappear in 2008.
FAIL (still there).

That?

What else fellas?

A quick look at your poll tells me that all but a random few of you witch doctors are going to be wrong about "arctic sea ice" in 2009.

Who cares about Arctic sea ice? The f-cking polar bears?

The "reason" that there are so many new "sign ups" who post anti-voodoo messages is . . .

. . . because the predictive ability of your science sucks rat balls.

Fix that, and you may stop hemorrhaging disciples like . .

. . .

. ..

. . . well, like sea ice losing mass in late summer.

Interesting that you make this claim given that the majority of other climate warming candidates have trended down for the last several decades and yet over the last 30 years the climate as a whole has warmed anyhow. Given that climate has warmed what mechanism do you suggest as being the causitive factor?

You are using too short of a time scale, just like all the polliticians do. The climate pattern for the last two centuries has followed a 30 year cycle where it warms, then plateau's or cools slightly, then it warms some more. It has been demonstrating a step wise function, not a constant upward graph when viewed over climate leangth scales. The only cooling shows on decadal or less scales. Unless you have some research showing otherwise?

Climate scientists predicted that there was a good chance that the geographic north pole would be ice free at some point last year, which is nothing like saying the entire Arctic Ocean basin would be ice free.


Actually a heck of a lot of Globalists care more than the Polar Bears do, if the Arctic starts going ice free on a regular basis shipping between Europe and East Asia becomes a lot faster and cheaper. That factor alone is enough to drive Arctic climate research.

Ad Hominem snipped

Funny, I am not promoting a religion and I don't seek disciples, I am just trying to figure out what is going on in the world around me and what kind of world I am leaving for my relatives when I depart this planet.