Here we go. From (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/past-arctic-warming-also-created-by-currents/) we get the following:

"Abstract

The Arctic has a crucial role in the world’s climatic system, and global warming may have an amplifying effect. The recently observed thinning of the sea ice has alerted scientists and policy makers alike. That was quite different when a similar warming occurred 90 years ago, which is still regarded as one of the most puzzling climatic event during the last century. That needs not to be, if the situation is being viewed from on oceanic perspective, together with the fact that the winter air temperatures in the higher Northern Hemisphere are greatly influenced by the ocean, particularly in the North Atlantic, which is partly free of sea ice up to the Fram Strait. Here also ends the West Spitsbergen Current, a current which supplies the Arctic Ocean with warm and saline Atlantic water. Already back in 1920s air temperature observation showed a strong warming at Spitsbergen during the winter season. By analyzing the winter temperature profile of five coastal stations it can be demonstrated that the climatic shift at the end of the 1910s had been closest to Spitsbergen, allowing the conclusion that circumstances related to the West Spitsbergen Current have caused the early Arctic warming almost a century ago."

It is obvious that what we have today is not unusual and that the drivers of ice cover are ocean currents and winds, not just temperature. In fact, the reason for the unusual increase in Arctic temperatures is the change in ocean currents that bring more heat into the area. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any of this.

Anonymous stated: There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any of this.

Your argument appears to be that because warm ocean currents caused ice to melt in the 20s/30s, it is obvious that Co2 cannot be causing ice to melt now.

There is also one very significant difference between the melt pattern today, and in the 20s/30s. Back then the strongest reduction in ice was during winter. This is the season when the water is warmest in comparison to air, and when warm ocean currents can have the most dramatic impact on conditions. Today the strongest reduction in ice is during summer. This is the season when the air is warmest in comparison to the water, and suggests that the melting is being driven by what is happening in the atmosphere and not the ocean. Of course the oceans are still having a significant impact, and it is most likely the case that Co2 as well as other factors are impacting the Arctic.

In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.

A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!

www.51percent.org

The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.

Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.

Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say "This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

The fact is that we are being informed of the dangerous path we are on by depending greatly on animal flesh for human consumption. We still have the opportunity to make the most effective steps in saving ourselves and this planet. By simply choosing a plant based diet we can reduce our carbon foot print by a huge amount.

We are gambling with our lives and with those of our future generations to come. It's madness to know we are fully aware of the possible consequences but yet are failing to act.

Promoting a plant based diet to the public is would be the most effective way to curb deforestation, we hope this will be adopted as a significant measure to save the rainforests and protect the delicate ecology.

Thank you for your consideration.

Funny there are more scientists who are now referring to global warming as unsubstantiated political nonsence than ever before. Why not just give all of our decision making to governtmental people like ?????????????????????????......
Al Gore so we won't have to think critically about how the next henney penny convinces us the sky is falling as they take both our freedom and cash. Play on .

Pull your head out already! There is heaps of evidence that CO2 is causing climate change. Not one respectable scientific organisation agrees with you. It amazes me that you continue to grasp at straws.

I think these things are sometimes monitored a little too closely. Arctic sea ice coverage seems to be recovering quite nicely over the past few days.

Reply: I basically said that in the post.

Just in case someone missed these numbers:

1980 Delta Sept\Oct Extent (growth) = +1.7 million sq km
2007 Delta Sept\Oct Extent (growth) = +2.5 million sq km
2008 Delta Sept\Oct Extent (growth) = +3.7 million sq km
2009 Delta Sept\Oct Extent (growth) = +2.1 million sq km
*1979-2000 Sept\Oct Extent mean = +2.3 million sq km

RE: G. Karst | November 6, 2009 2:23 PM

Always an interesting stat. I have to ask myself though, is the rate higher now because it's cooler in the Arctic now than in the 1980s, or is it because it's a larger area that melted these past few years, thus there's more area to refreeze than there was back then? I am personally inclined to think the latter is more true given that UAH temperatures for the Arctic show that the average fall temperatures are warmer the past few years than they were in the 1980s.

In any case, it seems the growth rate has slowed in the past week or two; the current sea ice extent is now roughly the same as this point in 2007 and lowest for this day in the AMSR-E records. Of course as Brett and others have pointed out, this is only one day. I suspect that unless ice growth REALLY levels off in the next week, it will be surpassed by 2006 soon enough and that we'll really only know the state of things come the maximum in March.

Arctic winter has only just begun.

Your argument appears to be that because warm ocean currents caused ice to melt in the 20s/30s, it is obvious that Co2 cannot be causing ice to melt now.

There is also one very significant difference between the melt pattern today, and in the 20s/30s. Back then the strongest reduction in ice was during winter. This is the season when the water is warmest in comparison to air, and when warm ocean currents can have the most dramatic impact on conditions. Today the strongest reduction in ice is during summer. This is the season when the air is warmest in comparison to the water, and suggests that the melting is being driven by what is happening in the atmosphere and not the ocean. Of course the oceans are still having a significant impact, and it is most likely the case that Co2 as well as other factors are impacting the Arctic.

This is a narrative not supported by actual empirical data. The simple fact is that we do not know as much about what is going on and what went on as the arrogant scientists who have their hands out for grants want us to believe. The satellites have only been measuring this for about three decades so we have no idea about overall melting patterns. And even our satellite data sucks because of various sensor and processing issues, as well as entirely different satellite types that produce far less accuracy than is believed. We have had the satellites indicate open water in areas that were frozen but had pools of melt-water on top of the ice. We had thickness estimates that turned out to be off by 100%. We have seen the launch of new satellites create a step change in the ice cover reports. We have seen hundreds of adjustments to the processing algorithms because previous ones were inadequate. We have seen different sensors come up with different numbers regarding ice cover. All of this is evidence of inadequate knowledge and inadequate instrumentation. That makes it hard to spin a convincing narrative.

You also missed the literature that has claimed that the increased summertime melt is due to carbon black and other particulate deposits that change the albedo at polar latitudes. Global populations have exploded as has global industrial activity has added a lot of particulates to the atmosphere.

The bottom line is that you are trying to create a narrative to justify a conclusion that has no empirical evidence to support it. Science is about hard data so if you want to present it I am more than happy to look at it. But until then all you have are tall tales that have no credibility in the non-political sphere.

Anonymous-
"It is obvious that what we have today is not unusual and that the drivers of ice cover are ocean currents and winds, not just temperature. In fact, the reason for the unusual increase in Arctic temperatures is the change in ocean currents that bring more heat into the area. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any of this."

Obvious to whom? I do not agree.
You are the one with the tall tales, you provide only personal opinion... nothing more. So what?

Travis | November 6, 2009 9:20 PM

"...is the rate higher now because it's cooler in the Arctic now than in the 1980s, or is it because it's a larger area that melted these past few years, thus there's more area to refreeze than there was back then?"

Personally, I would avoid answering that question. If pressed hard enough... my answer would be exactly like yours. What could I really offer as an evidential path or proof, however? GK

Re: G. Karst | November 11, 2009 2:34 PM

That's the problem with climate data; there's rarely enough of it with the quality one wants in order to make an unambiguous claim about anything worthwhile based on the data alone.

"Michael Hauber:
Anonymous stated: There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any of this.

Your argument appears to be that because warm ocean currents caused ice to melt in the 20s/30s, it is obvious that Co2 cannot be causing ice to melt now.

There is also one very significant difference between the melt pattern today, and in the 20s/30s. Back then the strongest reduction in ice was during winter. This is the season when the water is warmest in comparison to air, and when warm ocean currents can have the most dramatic impact on conditions. Today the strongest reduction in ice is during summer. This is the season when the air is warmest in comparison to the water, and suggests that the melting is being driven by what is happening in the atmosphere and not the ocean. Of course the oceans are still having a significant impact, and it is most likely the case that Co2 as well as other factors are impacting the Arctic."

Nicely done!