1. 2009 was not at or equal to 2007 and to keep insisting that it was is nothing less then a lie. Analyse it anyway you want you can not change the fact that 2009s minimum was larger then 2007 as was 2008.

2. Reduced multi year ice was indeed a foregone conclusion for 2008 and 2009 as once melted ice can only be replaced by new ice, The remaining old ice can get thinner or thicker but it doesn't spread out into areas that have been melted. It can of course be melted in subsequent years or calve off on the Greenland side of the cap but there is no upside to old ice once it is gone.
3. What is normal? The last few years have been warmer then we think is normal but the science we have used to define normal is both scant and biased.[/quote]

1. no liars here or I'd feel a proper charlie! as you will have to accept from my postings the real key issue (which you do seem to be beginning to avoid ) is the way every year since 2005 has been outside of accepted norms. however seeing as you keep banging on (as it were!) about 2007, 2009 has actually been tracking 2007's ice extent since mid October which is a bit scary and not what I expected;
2. Why are you talking about ice thickness when I am discussing the ice extent and how this is way below where it should be for some years now i.e. it has found a new level albeit in my view a tempoary one.

3. Normal? Well I rather think stats from 1870 provides us some asssitance in assessing what the norm coupled with the generally accepted fact that being over two standard deviations away from the average ice extent for a year is in mathematics deemd as abnormal.

come VTS step into the breach once more and accept that being over two std deviations from the average is outside the norm and repeating this for five years running is very abnormal.

come VTS deep breath you can do it!

best

Smudger

1. no liars here or I'd feel a proper charlie! as you will have to accept from my postings the real key issue (which you do seem to be beginning to avoid ) is the way every year since 2005 has been outside of accepted norms. however seeing as you keep banging on (as it were!) about 2007, 2009 has actually been tracking 2007's ice extent since mid October which is a bit scary and not what I expected;
2. Why are you talking about ice thickness when I am discussing the ice extent and how this is way below where it should be for some years now i.e. it has found a new level albeit in my view a tempoary one.

3. Normal? Well I rather think stats from 1870 provides us some asssitance in assessing what the norm coupled with the generally accepted fact that being over two standard deviations away from the average ice extent for a year is in mathematics deemd as abnormal.

come VTS step into the breach once more and accept that being over two std deviations from the average is outside the norm and repeating this for five years running is very abnormal.

come VTS deep breath you can do it!

best

Smudger[/quote]
It seems my last reply which should have appeared between your last two has gone astray so try try again.
You keep pounding on about your statistics and two standard deviations from norm. I find that statistics are often abused and place little or any faith in the validity of the results. This comes from seeing them repeatedly used in my line of work to reach false conclusions.
The first law of computers still applies "Garbage in equals Garbage out.
Analysing data from 1870 looking for changes of two degrees C? What data do you have that was collected in a unbiased way with an accuracy of less then one degree C. The answer is none. You are limited to where western peoples were actually present in 1870. A huge bias right there. All you have is data from whaling ships and a few others which were concerned with hunting whales not collecting accurate data. You have to admit that pulling up a bucket of sea water from beside a half butchered whale and sticking a mercury thermometer in it might not give you a fair representation of the conditions in the area and no data at all about the region further north beyond which the sailing ships dared not go.The same applies to tree ring data. All of it has to be collected from below the tree line which is the edge of the arctic and tells us nothing about conditions a thousand miles further north.
I brought up ice thickness only because others here continually rebut the 08 and 09 increase in extent by whining that it is thinner. If your not one of them my apologies.
Have a nice day.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm latest ice coverage chart

Latest comparison of 2009-2010 with 2007-2008

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Which confirms that we are in a new regime for Arctic ice. The 2007 summer was an outlier driven by unusual weather, but underlying the ice loss has been warm ocean currents. We would have had robust winter time ice accumulation if things were like they were 20 years ago.

The oceans will continue to warm in the coming decades since they are not in equilibrium with the current, and still increasing, greenhouse profile of the atmosphere. The focus is routinely on atmospheric temperatures but the more important question is what will be the global ocean temperature in response to 430 ppmv CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas loading. Are they going to be 3 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100? At this rate they will become a net CO2 source. Atmosphere-centric coverage of AGW in the media is nonsense that hides the enormity of the problem.

Agreed diss,

The chart is another example of nature not working linearly. Something most people simply cannot wrap their minds around.

The biggest problem in perception comes IMO from the fact that very few people have any grasp of the heat capacity of Water. Even science reporters rarely grasp just how much energy it takes to melt ice or warm water even a few degrees on any temperature scale you use.

The problem of the amount of heat to melt Ice is simple to illustrate,





I other words go from 0 degree ice to 0 degree water, Celsius.

Add 80 more calories and you go to 80. degrees Celsius







.... for stubborn Americans who refuse to learn the metric system,

80 calories of heat you go from 32 degrees Fahrenheit ice to 32 degrees Fahrenheit water per gram. (Ice to water)

add 80 more calories to that gram of water, you get 176 degrees Fahrenheit

Ya know, as silly as it seems, this little discussion on heat in ice was helpful.

It is all stuff I 'knew." But restating it, as done here, helped my dime drop a bit "Oh yeah!"

It the difference between abstract knowing and physical application.

Thanks guys.

You neglected to mention that 'physics' calories are not the same size as 'food' calories, I can't recall if it is a factor of 100 or 1000 but a food calorie is very small compared to the ones you are talking about.

I dont think there is different calories. An adult male may eat 3000 kilocalories each day. Not all of this is converted to heat or work but say 80% is, if this male has a hard physical work. Then the body of this male would metabolize 2400 kilocalories each day or 100 kilocalories each hour on average. This equals 418 kilojoule each hour or 418 Watt averaged throughout the day. This energy, if converted to heat, would be enough to melt 30 kg ice each day.

That is exactly my point, what people call 'calories' when talking about food are actually KILO calories and the amount of those needed to melt ice are far different than the 'average' person thinks they are.

Also it would only melt that 30 kg of ice if the ice were already at 0 Celsius, not if it were much colder as it is at the pole in winter.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm latest sea ice coverage chart

It being the last day of 2009, here is the link to the National Snow & Ice Data Center's most recent graph of ice coverage:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

Looking at the Alaska side there is winter as usual.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/marfcst.php?fcst=FZAK80PAFC
PKZ510-EASTERN US ARCTIC OFFSHORE-
PKZ505-CENTRAL US ARCTIC OFFSHORE-
PKZ500-WESTERN US ARCTIC OFFSHORE-
PKZ245-FLAXMAN ISLAND TO DEMARCATION POINT-
PKZ240-CAPE HALKETT TO FLAXMAN ISLAND-
PKZ235-POINT FRANKLIN TO CAPE HALKETT-
PKZ230-CAPE BEAUFORT TO POINT FRANKLIN-
PKZ225-CAPE THOMPSON TO CAPE BEAUFORT-
PKZ220-WALES TO CAPE THOMPSON-
PKZ215-KOTZEBUE SOUND-
PKZ210-DALL POINT TO WALES-
PKZ200-NORTON SOUND-

ICE COVERED.

-BERING SEA-

PKZ180-SOUTHWEST ALASKA WATERS CAPE NEWENHAM TO DALL POINT-
PKZ160-BRISTOL BAY WATERS CAPE NEWENHAM TO PORT HEIDEN-

THE ICE EDGE LIES FROM NUSHAGAK BAY TO 58.2N 158.8W TO 58.5N 161.9W
TO 59.1N 163.5W TO 59N 166.5W TO 60.2N 170.5W TO 60.4N 173.2W TO
61.1N 176.7W TO 62N 179.6E TO 61.4N 178E TO 59.7N 170.8E AND
CONTINUES ALONG THE KAMCHATKA COAST. THE ICE EDGE IS MAINLY 4 TO 6
TENTHS NEW AND YOUNG ICE OFTEN IN STRIPS.

FORECAST THROUGH MONDAY...ICE ALONG THE EDGE WILL DRIFT TO THE WEST
THROUGH FRIDAY. COLDER TEMPERATURES WILL ALLOW THE ICE EDGE TO MOVE
10 TO 15 NM TO THE SOUTH THROUGH FRIDAY. OVER THE WEEKEND WINDS WILL
TURN TO THE NORTHEAST AND TEMPERATURES WILL DECREASE. ICE WILL
DEVELOP QUICKLY SATURDAY THROUGH MONDAY IN AREAS OF THE BERING SEA
WHERE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE 1C OR LESS. EXPECT THIS NEW ICE TO
EXTEND THE ICE EDGE 50 TO 75 NM BY MONDAY.

If you look at the Greenland Sea HERE and compare it to the average you will see it is below average.

Of course neither this example or VT's prove anything, they are weather effects, which have to add up over decades to show clear trends one way or another. So far every long term graph I have seen has shown a downward trend in ice cover, until that changes the future is likely to have less ice in it than this day in any given future year.

I don't think you can go that far with the quality of the data we have in hand and the graphs drawn from them.

Yes, you can easily go that far, since the quality of the data is observable.

i say VTS I do feel you're beginning to embarass yourself now. First you inlcude a data reference to back up your statement that things are normal (albeit in the past you had tried to question what normal was before having it gently pointed out to you that variances over two standard definitions are defined as being outside of the norm)

then when Tanada emphasises that its the longer term trends that are important (partly no don't to head off anyone saying "its just a single datapoint") you then turn round and say oh there isn't any quality reference data about!!

There's an old Roman saying "clinging onto to a piece of timber won't stop the ship from sinking to do that you must do something". VTS, me old mucker, are you clinging to a piece of wood?!

cheers
Smudger

If that bit in bold print had been stated in 2007 it would have been dead wrong in both 2008 and 2009. It is also not likely to be correct in future years more then 50 percent of the time. To state that it will be true every year is a bit far don't you think.
The year 2009 is over and done with. There was no record ice loss. Get over it.
It's time this thread was put to bed. Perhaps someone will be persistent enough to start one for 2010 or maybe peoples attention will turn elsewhere until there is a measurable shift one way or the other.

It is truly a shame when people know grammar so poorly that they can not distinguish the difference between the descriptors ANY and EVERY.