Given that most of the warming which has been recorded is in the arctic, this blows away the primary basis for CO2 legislation.

Instead, we should be focused on real pollutants.

Remember how all the liberals screamed when President Bush tried to keep CO2 from being characterized as a pollutant? Well apparently he was spot on target.

This makes perfect sense.

The large temperature spike which occurred in the arctic from 2003-2005, correlates to the massive forest fires in the Rocky Mountains, Arizona and Alaska which occurred from 2002-2004.

There were not many fires last season, and as a result arctic temperatures are below normal in 2007.

It never made any sense that the arctic was heating, and the antarctic simultaneously cooling due to a global greenhouse effect.

Wow, just like that, Patrick believes in AGW.

Amazing.

Mark,

1. Forest fires are not "AGW", except from the point of view that many decades of intentional fire suppression caused recent fires to be much larger than normal.

2. The entire AGW industry is centered around CO2 and CO2 based models. If 90% of the arctic warming is due to soot, that means that the IPCC report and current hysteria about CO2 is completely off-base.

The difference here is that someone has presented a scientific theory which actually makes sense.

When making claims, please use facts such as the following from the NCDC:

The global land and ocean surface temperature was the 6th warmest on record in February, but a record warm January helped push the boreal winter (December-February) to its highest value since records began in 1880 (1.30�F/0.72�C above the 20th century mean). The presence of El Ni�o conditions contributed to the season's record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February as ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5�F/0.3�C and were near average for the month.

Separately, the global December-February land-surface temperature was the warmest on record while the ocean-surface temperature tied for second warmest in the 128-year period of record, approximately 0.1�F (0.06�C) cooler than the record established during the very strong El Ni�o episode of 1997-1998.

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11�F (0.06�C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32�F (0.18�C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

I would hazard a guess that most of this dirty snow is from sandstorms across the globe. Amazing how the AGW crowd keeps "finding" these new theories to support AGW.

Patrick,

Let's see your sources regarding below-average temperatures across the Arctic Circle this year. And by Arctic Circle, I mean all areas -- not just some cherry-picked little town in the middle of Iceland. This includes Siberia, Norway, northern Canada, Greenland, etc -- for the months of January through the end of May.

Andrew,

Here is some NCDC data for you - most of the US was below or near normal from December through February.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/12_02_2007_DvTempRank_pg.gif

Some parts of the US were 10 degrees below normal.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/Last3mTDeptUS.png

If it was so warm this winter, why is there so much ice near the poles now?

Antarctic ice is above normal.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

Arctic ice is near or above normal in most locations
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html

Mark,

Weather underground is a good source of data for the arctic. I suggest you start with Greenland, since it is the poster country of AGW. Most of Greenland has been running much below normal temperatures this spring. Same for the arctic portions of Alaska and Canada
http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2007/5/8/MonthlyHistory.html

Also, my previous post gave links showing the extent of ice in both hemispheres, which in the majority of basins is at or above normal.

Al Gore keeps telling us that polar bears can't go on to the ice in the Hudson Bay any more because it is all melting, yet Hudson Bay ice is above the 50 year mean.

Patrick;

The topic is artic temperatures and dirty snow.
What happened in the US and elsewhere is another matter.

Anyhow, arctic ice and temps. are following a trend. Consider the following press release from the people who actually monitor the situation:

PRESS RELEASE: Arctic Sea Ice Narrowly Misses Wintertime Record Low

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070403_winterrecovery.html

NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said, "This year's low wintertime extent is another milestone in a strong downward trend. We're still seeing near-record lows and higher-than-normal temperatures. We expect the downward trend to continue in future years."

Come September, we'll see how the summer ice minimum compares. I suspect it'll be another record.

Apparently Patrick doesn't even read his own links.

I checked out your site, and most of those locations are below normal.

Also, the "normal" being used in those graphs are for 1979-2000. This is the period of recent rapid warming of the climate. So you're comparing today with the mean of an already-warming period (1979-2000). And yet, most locations are still below normal. What that tells us is that the ice is continuing to shrink in most locations.

This chart from that website is a good illustration:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

Andrew,

I'm sending you raw data from official sources, and you are sending me press releases. The great thing about the Internet is that it allows us to bypass politicians and journalists. Look at the graphs for yourself.

If polar ice is on a steady downward trend, why is it above average? Only one arctic basin out of 14 is below average. What kind of trend is that?

The point of this thread is an article which correlates polar temperatures and soot. Apparently soot is down and so are polar temperatures and melting.

Mark,

"Most of those locations are below normal"

Usual nonsense-

normal is +/- 5% of average, i.e. within the range of measurement error.

Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) - above normal

Arctic Basin - normal
Bering Sea - normal
St. Lawrence - no data
Baffin/Newfoundland - normal
Greenland Sea - normal
Barents Sea - below normal
Kara Sea - slightly below normal
Laptev Sea - below normal
East Siberian Sea - slightly below normal
Chuckchi Sea - normal
Beaufort Sea - normal
Canadian Archipelago - normal
Hudson Bay - normal
Sea of Okhostk - no data

Maybe it would help if we could all agree on what "normal" is, is. (In Clinton parlance there for those of you who need it)

Maybe then we can study temps versus this "normal" reading for the next several hundred years to decide what should be done about it. LOL.

Anything less seems to be a jump to judgement.

Hi Guys,

This is according to the Glacier Program at Rice University. "The response time to climate changes for different sizes of glaciers are as follows:

* ice sheet: 100,000 to 10,000 years

* large valley glacier: 10,000 to 1,000 years

* small valley glacier: 1,000 to 100 years

For very large glaciers such as the Antarctic Ice Sheet, considerable time is needed for the ice sheet to respond to any environmental changes. Changes in climate may take tens of thousands of years before the entire ice sheet has adjusted to changing, and by that time, the climate may have changed again."

Again, Patrick, the 'normals' you're comparing with are from the warming period itself, 1979-2000.

Also, in most of the so called 'normal' graphs you reference, the ice is below normal up until the very end. A few data points don't tell us anything. If that trend continued for several years, then you have an argument. At the moment, what you've referenced is almost similar to posting about your backyard weather on a particular cold day.

You conveniently didn't address the graph I found on that page showing the shrinking of the Northern Hemispheric ice. AGW deniers are so good at the artful dodge.

I thinkn that sooty snow is also causing the melting of the glaciers in the Himalalyas in India. Another contributer is the de-forestation that is continuing on a large scale there. Most of the forest-mafia are now politicians and big-wigs with enough muscle power to threaten, coerce and offer huge brobes to the people who mann and guard the forest.

Mark,

Your third person references make you appear defensive.

The University of Illinois uses 1979-2000 as the base because 1979 was the first year that satellite data was available. Is that sinister?

Again, I will point out that a single arctic basin (east of Greenland) accounts for the arctic ice decline in your link. And that basin is rapidly headed back towards normal. The rest of the arctic has near normal ice pack, and Hudson Bay is above normal.

Most importantly, Antarctica has had steadily increasing ice pack for the last twenty years, so the total volume of sea ice on earth has increased over the last twenty years.

PH,

That's because a large volume of land ice has claved into the ocean. Increased snows in Antarctic also good proxy for global warming.

no doubt it's warming!

Of course the earth is warming, nerds! Otherwise the Great Lakes would still be ice. And I didn't even go to university. You won't stop the process with taxes or human ideas, so give up and send me your money.

Good one D.
How small of us to believe that we can maintain the earth as it is today. We will have to learn to adapt to the ever-changing world, as our ancestors have for the last million years. They could not maintain the earths climate to suit them and neither can we, no matter how many eco-dreamers or "end of the world as we know it" folks believe otherwise.

Mother Earth has always, and always will, look after herself and she'll teach us that we are not the almighty control of her above ground climate and freezer, and below ground furnace systems. She's way too unpredictable. Any major catastrophy she can deliver could wipe us off her face, yet she would heal quite nicely and continue her journey in space without us.