Come on, give me a break. How would they know what normal is? They can only remember 40 years back!! Sheesh!!

Mark,
Thanks for the insight into the bizarre world of liberal thinking.

Mark - "Europe is socialist"

Patrick - "No, most of Europe is capitalist"

Mark - "When you stop calling Europe socialist then we can have this conversation"

BTW - Self-proclaimed AGW advocate and profiteer James Hansen clearly has (at a minimum) a conflict of interest. He should step down or be put in a different position.

How does the loss of ice above Siberia and NW Alaska translate to "Global" warming?

The logical inference is - that portion of the earth is currently seeing warmer summertime temperatures than what most residents are used to.

While this in itself is a major disconnect from logic, even worse is the next (il)logical step which automatically assumes the ice loss is due to anthropogenic CO2 - despite the fact that the CO2 based models do not predict this Arctic warming.

Nothing adds up here scientifically or logically - but who cares as long as people have someone to blame?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Energy/Power/Buddhadeb_blames_US_for_global_warming/articleshow/2296281.cms

This is proof that every person thinks of his/her corner of the world as benig representative of the entire globe...

People should be saying, (and they can and would be scientifically correct), "My area is warming lately- I really don't know if it's due to increasing trends in other areas of the globe, but I do know it's been getting warmer here."

The End

Brett - could you scare up a plot of temperature data for this part of Alaska and add it to your post? I looked on John Daly's site ( which is getting out of date ) and there isn't much warming on the stations I looked at.
Is Hansen hunting in Alaska????
Be good,
Rick.

Reply, Rick, what time period do you want it to cover? Brett

People have been hunting in Alaska for far more than 40 years. The retreat of sea ice is dramatic and unpreceditended.

If anybody does not udnerstand the science of how Carbon Dioxide causes GLOBAL WARMING or why it has impacted arctic sea ice then consult with the IPCC report on Global Warming.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

In brief, there is a feedback mechanism.
Carbon dioxide raises temperatures slightly.
Melts some ice.
Less ice results in more sun light absorbtion.
This heats up the arctic even more and melts even more ice.

Initially, ice shelves in the arctic were breaking up and helping to preserved the sea ice. Now, most ice shelves are gone. So, the sea ice is melting much quicker.

Most up do date projections show the arctic being ice free during the summer within 40 years.

Southern Hemisphere, with more ice shelves has not seen the decline. Larsen B ice shelf broke up a few years ago and put a chunk of ice nearly the size of a small state into the sea. It will take many years before all the ice shelves of antarctica break up and sea ice begins to decline in southern hemisphere.

The Alaskan people should be getting an education and stop the needless killing of wild animals for food, clothing and profit. I know no other indiginous USA tribes still involved with this practice. Let the Native people get educations and real jobs like the rest of us.

Yes the models DID in fact predict that the poles would warm most quickly and dramatically. Second this is not an isolated report, there is evidence streaming in from all over the globe, to represent the entire planet.

Laura,

You seem to have some strong beliefs, but don't present any evidence to back them up. Some of the other AGW true believers here keep telling us that arctic temperatures have risen much faster than the models predicted.

Want to see a dramatic polar temperature? Here is one for you. -103 degrees in Antarctica today.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing. Did the "models" predict that?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

I think it would be best to get as recent as possible . Most of Daly's sites stop in the 1999 to 2002 period. It is always interesting to look at the actual station data ... at least those that that NOAA hasn't moved to parking lots or roof tops.
Andrew .... did you ever answer me about having a degree in science? I can't imagine you have any grasp of physics or statistics & you seem to be long on the BS but lacking the BSc if you get my drift.
With your feedback mechanism post you hit on one of the most blatant problems I have with the models ... the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can't cause any perceptible warming so they come up with a feedback mechanism to get the real greenhouse gas ( water vapour ) to do all the heavy lifting for the GLO-BULL warming models. See Joe Sobel's comment today on the modeling boys. Following is a quote form almost 200 years ago.

"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

Be good,
Rick.

Here is a link to 126 years of temperature trend data for several hundred areas around the globe for the month of August.

Just click on the dot to get time series graph of the specific location.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtem?mon2=8&monb2=1&mone2=1&bye2=1880&eye2=2006&proce=80&prob=0&submit=Create+Map¶m=Temperature&klu=2&mon1=0&eye1=0&bye1=0&graph=Dot&glob=AA&mon3=0&monb3=0&mone3=0&ye=0&begX=0&begY=0&endX=0&endY=0&puzo=0&dat=BLEND&ts=6&nzi=99&sbeX=-180.0&sbeY=90.0&senX=180.0&senY=-90.0

@Patrick Henry,

Mr. Patrick,

I have to agree with Laura, just about every serious discussion of modeled climate changes has noted that warming would be greatest around the poles. As far as I understand it, one of the main reasons for this is the temperature-albedo feedback first detailed in Andrew's post above. In other words, emperical data from the high northern latitudes is fitting nicely with coarse model predictions. The real discrepancy between model predictions and observed data seems to be in high southern latitudes. There, warming seems to be much less than predicted, as mentioned by Andrew.

Thanks

your right theresa...once they get an education they should be able to provide themselves the four basic food groups to sustain life in their hostile environment...1) lets see, a garden for greens should do well on the ice flows, as long as they do it organically...2) so should the fruit trees for this dietary requirement as long as they use biodiesel snowmobiles in the harvest 3) meat, i guess they can switch to fish because that creature isnt a free thinking beast like the walruses and seals, as long as they subject themselves to renewable and ecologically balance quotas even if it means starving for a few days...4) bread group? i guess they could trade fish scale art for wheat, using computer graphic designs selling their work on the internet thus qualifying for a "real job" like the rest of us...since they are so smart now, they should be able to generate power from wind farms mounted on carbon neutral tundra to run the computers thereby cancelling at any co2 expulsion they inadvertently created by their own existence...

Andrew - I do believe those " sites " are grid cells constructed by the Hansen brothers at NOAA & many of them have no stations but are constructed by the fudgefactoring gnomes of the GLO-BULL warming fraternity. Also is this still all wrong for 2000 + years or have they corrected here for their mistake in hottest ever decade that Steve M caught???
If this is the same data set I believe it is then Andrew answer me this .... with around a dozen sites in the Chicago area to use why did they use the largest possible urban area site & not a rural site .... figures don't lie but the liars sure do figure.
Hey Andrew .... why is the US 2% mistake insignificant & yet people like you were sure that Micheal Mann could calculate the world paleoclimate from a 1/2 dozen bristlecone pines in the Sierra Nevadas??
So many questions and so little time.
Oh one more ... ever been to the Arctic Andrew?

cbmclean,

At last someone willing to discuss details. Effectively you have partitioned the models into two parts. 1. The driving mechanism and 2. The feedback mechanism.

We can all agree that loss of snow will cause positive feedback. What we disagree about is the driving mechanism. The CO2 based models have greatly underestimated warming in the north, and greatly overestimated it in the south.

A scientific mind would think "perhaps this model is flawed, perhaps there is a more local mechanism driving warming in the arctic."

Fortunately, some recent research has given us a different model which works.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html
In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined

Note that the map generated by their model almost exactly matches the GISS data.

Good stuff Rick. Also Andrew you never responded to Memphis and their below normal nighttime lows for this month, AUGUST. Guess the hot air doesn't get trapped at night after all disspelling your AGW theory.

Theresa, your post sums up the AGW mission statement which is.... We don't care who you are, what your traditions are, and could care less about your culture. We want to control every minute of your life, and global warming is the tool.

rick;

Yes, I do have a degree in Science.

BS in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, with post grad work in Nuclear Engineering.

Also, keep in mind that significant carbon dioxide emissions started prior to 1750 with large scale coal mining in England. Clearing of land for agriculture (slash and burn) started even sooner throughout Europe.

cbmclean said: "just about every serious discussion of modeled climate changes has noted that warming would be greatest around the poles."

Really? I must have missed that. Actual research shows that Antarctica is gaining ice, enough in fact, to offset any loss of ice in the Arctic. Also, loss of ice in the Arctic is not new as noted in the 200 year old quote posted by Rick, and at other times. This would go along with the warm period when the Vikings discovered Greenland and named it as such.

Andrew, if you believe there is 120 years of good global temperature data then you are living in a fantasy land. Even our own data in the US is suspect as rural areas have turned urban and changed the surroundings of the data thermometers. Also, when new sensors were installed (around 33 years ago) they had an aspiration problem that caused them to record incorrect temperatures.

The best global temperature data we have is the satellite record, and it is only about 20 years old. Surprisingly, it doesn't show any temperature increase at all.

Lastly, Hansen at NASA had to restate his results because of errors found by Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org. Hansen has been using incorrect data for years. He also refuses to release his software code and algorithms for peer review. Hansen is supposed to be a scientist, why would he hide his methods if there is nothing wrong with them? Could it be that he knows that if his AGW house of cards comes under real scrutiny it will collapse and he'll not only be disgraced as a fraud, but out of a lot of money as well?

AGW is all about money; not facts, not truth. Do a little real research and you may find that out for yourselves.

BTW, what happened to Laura Hansen?

Reply, you mean Laura Hannon. She left AccuWeather a few months ago.

Andrew,

Too bad the "large scale coal mining in England" in 1750 didn't help all the people who froze or starved to death during the "Little Ice Age" which lasted until 1850.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea.

Lamb (1966) points out that in the warmest times of the last 1000 years, southern England had the climate that northern France has now. For example, the difference between the northen-most vineyard in England in the past and present-day vineyard locations in France is about 350 miles. In other terms that means the growing season changed by 15 to 20 percent between the warmest and coldest times of the millenium. That is enough to affect almost any type of food production, especially crops highly adapted to use the full-season warm climatic periods. During the coldest times of the LIA, England's growing season was shortened by one to two months compared to present day values. The availability of varieties of seed today that can withstand extreme cold or warmth, wetness or dryness, was not available in the past. Therefore, climate changes had a much greater impact on agricultural output in the past.

@Patrick Henry

Mr Patrick,

The linked article was fascinating. Certainly, it highights the big discrepancy that alot of peopel have noticed between the usual suspects of models, and the observed data at the south pole. I have to wonder though, assuming that dirty snow is a major contributor to arctic warming, does it really make much of a difference as far as what will happen tot he arctic is concerned? By that I mean, regardless of wether its CO2 or soot causing the majority of the arctic warming, a major feedback cycle has been initiated which may not end until there is no longer any summer ice pack.
Of course, it does make a major difference for the world as a whole. If the soot is responsible for a signifcant portion of the arctic warming, then CO2 might be less of a problem than anticipated.

Andrew,

Yes, I do have a degree in Science. BS in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, with post grad work in Nuclear Engineering.

Actually from your description, sounds like you have a degree in engineering, not science. I generally have more respect for the opinions of engineers than scientists, because engineering requires a certain level of practicality.

Scientists can be some of the most misguided people on the planet, as we have seen through this entire AGW story. On the other hand, very few of the engineers I work with consider the AGW theory to be much more than joke.

BTW - I hold both science and engineering degrees.

Andrew,

The retreat of sea ice is dramatic and unprecedented? Firstly "dramatic" is subjective and secondly you have no clue whether this is unprecedented.

Eskimos were in Greenland before the Vikings and remain today, can you tell me definitively that the sea ice did not recede as much in the 11 and 1200's during the Medieval Warm Period?

I am a bit surprised that you have a degree in Chemistry and see no flaws in the AGW hypothesis. If the IPCC had submitted their report to any of my Chemistry or Physics professors they would have likely laughed in their face and told them that the Scientific Method is the cornerstone of Science and to use it.

This can be settled if you all would present your hypothesis, your methods, and your conclusions. If it all adds up we deniers have little choice but agree, if they do not, what then, will you all concede?

Regards,

Steve

Theresa,

Why should we listen to the white man now past history has shown us that trust and truth are not something to be counted on when dealing with them. I guess thinning out our numbers and reducing us to live on reservations wasn't enough.

It's very hard to get an education and a job when one is still considered a stupid injun and the only good we're for is having our pictures taken with the tourists. You are talking about a culture and a people who almost went the way of the dinosaur. Sorry to sound so rude but I can't believe there are really people out there that don't have a clue about anything before they open their mouth.

I could be really ridiculous and say that your people have taken so much from our mother without caution that pay pack is coming. But since I am one of those educated injuns I will say that the earth has been and always will be in flux. The earth is millions of years old does it ever occur to anyone that this cycle has repeated itself over and over again for millions of years? IF the earth was not meant to change wouldn't it still be a mass of heated gas??

It appears to me that either man has become so full of himself to