This is an interesting article on the surprising increase in the amount of sea ice in the Arctic this year.
It had previously been confidently predicted that the Arctic sea ice would have shrunk to zero by this years usual August minimum, (end of Northern hemisphere's summer) but to many peoples surprise, it has reversed the shrinking trend by coming up with a huge 60% increase in just one year. This is an increase of about 920,000 square miles, so it's not an insignificant amount.
Had there been a decrease of anywhere near this then I think it would have got a lot more press than the increase has.
It will be interesting to see if this is a one off increase or if the shrinking trend returns in the next year or two.
If the current increase in sea ice continues next year then it will be a significant departure from the limits given by the IPCC models for short term departures from their predicted global warming, and they will be forced to re-think their models and predictions.
If nothing else, at least it has stopped the posting of videos of polar bears balancing on tiny melting icebergs.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Select to expand quoteoz surf said..
Its all down to the Carbon Tax
Yes. That was my first thought, and I suppose some will claim that.
But somehow I don't think the carbon tax would work quite that fast.
If it does then there's no point rushing into it because it should be safe to leave it until the last year or two before we fry up to a small burnt cinder.
Well that's inconvenient for the global warming fanatics.... An inconvenient truth !
This is happening mostly on the northern Hemisphere.
In australia and other Southern hemisphere countrys we have had one of the warmest winters in recorded history.
Co-incidence? guess we will see.
It could be just due to the slowing Gulf Stream. What will happen on the flip side of the cold cycle?
This could help explain it:
www.abc.net.au/catalyst/extreme-weather/11014480
^^ spot on.
Global warming does not just make everywhere hotter. It changes things like ocean currents so some places get colder.
The Gulf Stream is already radically changed - just ask the Atlantic fishermen
But pweedas (as usual) has a very good point. It is not really newsworthy is it...? Not alarmist enough...
You can't change your mind on global warming every time it gets a bit chilly. It's only recently that we've been able to measure the Arctic sea ice cover. There's more and more weather stations every year. A better measure is the rate of breaking hot records vs. the rate of breaking cold records.
I think watching public opinion on the subject is more interesting than the climate change itself. I predict that in the next few years, might even be at the end of this summer, public opinion will reach a tipping point. There'll be an overnight shift to a general consensus that the climate is changing towards hotter.
news.ucar.edu/
www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/2013-shaping-up-to-be-one-of-australias-hottest-years-on-record-20130730-2qvly.html
www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
If something shrinks 50% it has to grow 100% to get back to its original state.Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^ spot on.
Global warming does not just make everywhere hotter. It changes things like ocean currents so some places get colder.
The Gulf Stream is already radically changed - just ask the Atlantic fishermen
Ditto the Jet Stream, which is tending to have its path venture both further north and south, more of a wobble. This is why you'll see more extreme variations in weather, both hot and cold, but the overall trend will be warmer.
Basically like a slowing river begins to meander. The slowing jet stream is apparently caused by the reduction in temperature variation between the equator and the poles.
I realise the Arctic is not the whole world and there are many places which are recording record highs etc.
The reason this caught my attention was that for the past 10 years, the Arctic sea ice was front and centre in many discussion on climate change and was used as proof of the imminent destruction of the planet.
This is the year that it was confidently predicted that the sea ice would have shrunken to zero.
My guess is that half the global warming fraternity would have been up there to documnet, photgraph and report on the final ice cube melting into the deep blue briny, and what did they see?
A 60% increase. 
With so much previous attention on the subject, wouldn't you think it should have got the same coverage as the shrinking did?
After all, isn't that good news?
Clearly, although the event is certainly worth sharing with the world, it struck a very sour chord with the present song being sung so it was muted down to almost nothing.
That's the usual way of dealing with anything which does not fit with the present theology.
And yes, 'theology' is the right word because it has definitely taken on all the aspects of a religion.
Select to expand quoteharry potter said..
Well that's inconvenient for the global warming fanatics.... An inconvenient truth !
Actually its noise. Fluctuations of this nature are entirely to be expected.
It's unfortunate that this issue isn't more clear cut because the stakes are very high.
Pweeda's original post was quoting/linking to a UK newspaper - the Daily Mail. This is an absolute trash of a paper that should be accorded no respect or authority on any matter beyond whipping up mock outrage amongst old, white, ready-to-be-outraged Brits.
Whether Pweeda's post is fact or not is irrelevant - it's source lends it no credibility at all.
Scientists and their models are stupid. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that. They can't even get the seasons right. They say we're coming into summer but today was colder than yesterday. It's obviously not getting warmer. Summer is not coming.
...that's exactly how stupid that first article is.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
Tony was right. Global warming is bull**** :)
I thought he said it was crap
Anyway the way I see it all the fuss over the carbon tax etc for a piddly 5 percent reduction by 2020 cost Tony Abbot nothing and The labor party ,governance and a lot of casualties along the way . Whether you agree with Abbot or not the whole thing is a joke .So what happens if we don't achieve the target ? Not much ,a bit of cred in the hood perhaps. Humanity is facing a huge ecological challenge that many of the world citizens couldn't really care less about however the day of reckoning is fast approaching .we have ****ed the environment and the atmosphere and the damage has been done .we are greedy buggers and will always take the easy rd . China is really ****ed and they are paying a high price for it .the govt is putting up mega bucks for those who can fix the air and the soil pronto .there will be massive side benefits like how the rest of the world has benefited f.rom the solar tech advances from countries such as Germany.humans have proven via the defeat of nazi germany and Japan in a few short years and the ability to put men on the moon in a nano second in terms of our overall evolution that we can rise to the challenge .a carbon tax is a virtuous idea that gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside that something (but in reality not much) is being done. We will fix the environment by other means when we realize how dire the situation is.
I make no claim as to the worth of the newspaper quoted.
Knowing the way newspapers work it is probably a trash newspaper.
My estimation of whether the report had some relevance to it or not was based mostly on the NASA graphs published for similar dates in consecutive years. Nasa graphs are usually accurate, although sometimes misinterpretted.
And I also make no conclusion as to whether the graphs represent long term trends or not.
In the same way that 'one swallow does not a summer make",
a one off reversal does not a cooling trend make.
That's why my conclusion was;- "It will be interesting to see if this is a one off increase or if the shrinking trend returns in the next year or two."
And that point is both valid and accurate.
If it turns out that next year has a 60% decrease in sea ice, then we can all get back to posting videos of polar bears balancing on melting icebergs.
And if it turns out that next year's sea ice increases, then we can have the same discussion again.
The other point which is also valid and accurate is that regardless of whether it is a one off reversal or the end of the warming trend, it received virtually no publicity from the usual people who would have been shouting loudly "We told you so!" had the shrinking trend continued.
I think regardless of whether the ice grows or melts, it would be nice if it got similar coverage, otherwise the argument gets biased towards the most popular current philosophy, whether it be warming or cooling.
How foolish do we look, as a nation. We had the start of a trading scheme and now we look like hicks. You can guarantee that the US version of Andrew Bolt will be blogging " hey look at the Aussies they don't believe in climate change, they've thrown it out"
Our climate change policy is now run by Minchin, Bolt, Abbott, Alan Jones, and Greg Hunt..........great
Select to expand quotepweedas said..
In the same way that 'one swallow does not a summer make",
.
No it makes your night.....
Nobody talks about 'global warming' anymore, the catch phrase is 'climate change'. A 60% increase? Well, there you go, that's a change, so they must be right!!
Select to expand quoteCambodge said..
Whether Pweeda's post is fact or not is irrelevant - it's source lends it no credibility at all.
Yep, that's Seabreeze!! Who cares if it's true or false, the important point is who said it.
Met my mate loggy??
Select to expand quotelog man said..
How foolish do we look, as a nation. We had the start of a trading scheme and now we look like hicks. You can guarantee that the US version of Andrew Bolt will be blogging " hey look at the Aussies they don't believe in climate change, they've thrown it out"
Our climate change policy is now run by Minchin, Bolt, Abbott, Alan Jones, Greg Hunt..........great
That trading scheme was akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.scrapping it does damage our cred .i
Select to expand quote
In the meantime, we have bushfires in Sydney...in September
While in Hobart today it is 2.5 deg [b]and snowing down to 200m
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..In the meantime, we have bushfires in Sydney...in September
Is this so unusual?
About 2003, certainly in August, I took part in a 24-hour rogaine S of Ulladulla, based on the beach next to O'Hare's Island. At midnight, a bushfire was burning on the course.
About 2006, certainly October, I recall riding a train towards Lithgow from Mt Victoria. As we travelled the Darling Causeway, kilometres of snow sat to half-metre in height on the western side of the railway, while significant fires were being fought/mopped on the eastern side.
I live in Winmalee. It was seemingly cool-to-cold at 5pm last night (as it is today), while I looked at helicopters and a wide, low orange glow just kilometres away.
Select to expand quoteWollemi said..Mr Milk said..In the meantime, we have bushfires in Sydney...in September
About 2006, certainly October, I recall riding a train towards Lithgow from Mt Victoria. As we travelled the Darling Causeway, kilometres of snow sat to half-metre in height on the western side of the railway, while significant fires were being fought/mopped on the eastern side.
I live in Winmalee. It was seemingly cool-to-cold at 5pm last night (as it is today), while I looked at helicopters and a wide, low orange glow just kilometres away.
So really, it would be quite valid for either side of the global warming argument to describe either event in support of their argument.
Either just report the fires in support of global warming, or just report the cold and snow in support of cooling.
This comes back to what I was saying. It is apparent that while the 60% increase in Arctic sea ice was of some significance and interest to many, it has gone for the most part, unannounced, except for coverage in what most people say is a trashy news rag.
And thus, this announcement can be discounted because it is in a trashy news rag even though it be quite newsworthy.
Why don't the more respected papers run the story and explain that the event is still within the confines of the global warming scenario if they want to?
Why wasn't it on the news in the same way that the shrinking was?
I think it's because it does not coincide with the current CO2 pricing and trading agenda.
And we wouldn't want to upset that now would we?
Select to expand quotepweedas said..
Why don't the more respected papers run the story and explain that the event is still within the confines of the global warming scenario if they want to?
Why wasn't it on the news in the same way that the shrinking was?
I think it's because it does not coincide with the current CO2 pricing and trading agenda.
And we wouldn't want to upset that now would we?
Pweeda.... you're sounding like petermac.
Spending too much time in heavy weather? 
Select to expand quotepoor relative said..
Pweeda.... you're sounding like petermac.
Spending too much time in heavy weather? 
probably. 
Some of that stupidity is in such high concentration it would be hard not to become contaminated. 
From now on I will leave it entirely alone,..
I will never go there again!
,...Just as soon as I nip over there and make sure no-one is being silly again. 
{edit} gee,,.. lucky I checked.. Beagleboy was chucking a wobbly.
Turn my back for five minutes and people just say anything.
