No.

Your summary is completely over the top, the Arctic Ice pack is recovering albeit slowly. Antacrtic Ice is and has been well above "normal". We have had one the coldest Southern hemisphere winters in the Southern Hemisphere for about 40 years. The Arctic has just had one of its coldest recorded Summers. The East coast of the United States has also been very cold. There is far too much nonsense being made of the heat in Russia which has got to do with our current unusual weather pattern and nothing to do with any AGW. Your post sums up nicely the one sided bias that is being put out by the media. Over 400 people dying in Southern hemisphere cold and large areas losing masses of wild life to the cold and not one report on the television that i know of.

No.

Your summary is completely over the top, the Arctic Ice pack is recovering albeit slowly. Antacrtic Ice is and has been well above "normal". We have had one the coldest Southern hemisphere winters in the Southern Hemisphere for about 40 years. The Arctic has just had one of its coldest recorded Summers. The East coast of the United States has also been very cold. There is far too much nonsense being made of the heat in Russia which has got to do with our current unusual weather pattern and nothing to do with any AGW. Your post sums up nicely the one sided bias that is being put out by the media. Over 400 people dying in Southern hemisphere cold and large areas losing masses of wild life to the cold and not one report on the television that i know of.

Do you mean west coast as SEMerc says? East coast looks fairly warm to me from this map. And no mention of the flooding of nearly 1/5 of Pakistan in your rundown of climate extremes this year? Or China's flooding and landslides. It's been a tough year of weather extremes this year. Not that I'm saying it means much about AGW.

Not rellevent to my post (tragic as it is)as we have had masses and masses of this on the media. I was pointing out Cold weather events that did not make the media at large.

I have edited my above post, thanks for pointing out the West/East error.

Cryosphere Today - Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly - click to enlarge

No.

Your summary is completely over the top, the Arctic Ice pack is recovering albeit slowly. Antacrtic Ice is and has been well above "normal". We have had one the coldest Southern hemisphere winters in the Southern Hemisphere for about 40 years. The Arctic has just had one of its coldest recorded Summers. The East coast of the United States has also been very cold. There is far too much nonsense being made of the heat in Russia which has got to do with our current unusual weather pattern and nothing to do with any AGW. Your post sums up nicely the one sided bias that is being put out by the media. Over 400 people dying in Southern hemisphere cold and large areas losing masses of wild life to the cold and not one report on the television that i know of.

Do you mean west coast as SEMerc says? East coast looks fairly warm to me from this map. And no mention of the flooding of nearly 1/5 of Pakistan in your rundown of climate extremes this year? Or China's flooding and landslides. It's been a tough year of weather extremes this year. Not that I'm saying it means much about AGW.

Not rellevent to my post (tragic as it is)as we have had masses and masses of this on the media. I was pointing out Cold weather events that did not make the media at large.

Moved this from the penguin thread as it is pretty interesting.....Good find fafhrd.

Remember the Sudden Stratospheric Warming we experienced in January 2009, and the effects on the weather in Western Europe and the UK? Well something similar happened over Antarctica in July 2010. Could this have been the reason for the SH cold plunge this winter?

also:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif

Moved this from the penguin thread as it is pretty interesting.....Good find fafhrd.

 

Remember the Sudden Stratospheric Warming we experienced in January 2009, and the effects on the weather in Western Europe and the UK? Well something similar happened over Antarctica in July 2010. Could this have been the reason for the SH cold plunge this winter?

also:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif " href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif">http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif

In both case modulated by the effect of solar surface activity on the upper atmosphere which seems to be capable of altering stratospheric temperatures and thus the tropospheric pressure distributions.  

The chart you have shown, Robertski, is a good example. Do you agree?  

And what do you think about possible tropospheric changes caused by changes to the mesosphere - thermosphere

see - here

Essan asked this question -

Is there any connection between the thermosphere and the surface climate?

I don't think this is an issue but an answer is needed.

Looking at the Arctic temperature chart below there are at least seven anomalously high readings in North America adjacent to the Arctic basin. Any known reasons for these or are they real?

This image will soon change - anyone know if there is an archive link?

Warm water flowing in from the North Pacific would be my guess.
The sst's have been quite high for some time now but seem to be easing off a bit lately.(Link below in bold)

DMI /COI [Satellite SST analysis]

Use the dropdown in the parameter box to view anomalies.

.

I don't think this is an issue but an answer is needed.

Looking at the Arctic temperature chart below there are at least seven anomalously high readings in North America adjacent to the Arctic basin. Any known reasons for these or are they real?

This image will soon change - anyone know if there is an archive link?

EDIT: Not quite sure you meant to post this here though??

Is this the key issues thread or another sea ice thread?

Is this the key issues thread or another sea ice thread?

Warm water flowing in from the North Pacific would be my guess.
The sst's have been quite high for some time now but seem to be easing off a bit lately.(Link below in bold)

DMI /COI [Satellite SST analysis]

Use the dropdown in the parameter box to view anomalies.

.

Now, I don't know how the temperatues displayed  in these charts compare with the records that go on to compile the data base used in the figures that are argued about in the AGW debate. I was just hoping for some clarification.

I don't think this is an issue but an answer is needed.

Looking at the Arctic temperature chart below there are at least seven anomalously high readings in North America adjacent to the Arctic basin. Any known reasons for these or are they real?

This image will soon change - anyone know if there is an archive link?

If you want a permanent record upload the URL to an image hosting site . Thus (I've resized the image displayed but clicking on the link will go to the normal size version)

EDIT: Not quite sure you meant to post this here though??

Sorry for the above Polarwind.

Should have went to specsavers.

I'm have a really drawn out discussion (read: argument) on a different forum with a poster who says that because CO2 causes about 1/4 of greenhouse effect (in terms of radiative forcing), that must mean it has a 4x feedback factor.

Can anyone else see the flaw in this logic, or is it just me?

I'm have a really drawn out discussion (read: argument) on a different forum with a poster who says that because CO2 causes about 1/4 of greenhouse effect (in terms of radiative forcing), that must mean it has a 4x feedback factor.

Can anyone else see the flaw in this logic, or is it just me?

I assume he is drawing a direct link between the 1/4 and the 4x?  If so, I agree with you that the logic is flawed.  Not sure what point he is trying to make?  Surely by that logic the other 75% would also have 4x feedbacks for each quarter...?

I'm have a really drawn out discussion (read: argument) on a different forum with a poster who says that because CO2 causes about 1/4 of greenhouse effect (in terms of radiative forcing), that must mean it has a 4x feedback factor.

Can anyone else see the flaw in this logic, or is it just me?

I assume he is drawing a direct link between the 1/4 and the 4x?  If so, I agree with you that the logic is flawed.  Not sure what point he is trying to make?  Surely by that logic the other 75% would also have 4x feedbacks for each quarter...?

Yes, as far as I can tell he's working on the implicit assumption that CO2 is the only driver and all else is feedback, and although he denies this I can see no other explanation.

This logic makes sense only if you consider all non-condensible GHGs (not just CO2), and assume that if you took out all of those, the remaining water vapour would result in a greenhouse effect so small as to be negligible.

This paper suggests that 20% or so of the greenhouse effect would remain if you took out all the CO2 and let the system equilibriate. As a first approximation maybe the 4x is okay, but it sure helps (particularly if arguing with ardent, die hard sceptics) to be as clear and accurate as possible on all points.

Key issues are regularly being discussed here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/05/clouds-the-wild-card-of-climate-change/

Key issues are regularly being discussed here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/05/clouds-the-wild-card-of-climate-change/

With the greatest respect that is hardly a source of impartial scientific information and discussion....

You might as well say that there are good discussions about child-raising on the KingHerod.com website.....

Gandalf, I don't think anyone needs your partisan opinion as to the merits of different sites.

Readers will make up their own minds.

You are just trying to prop up your own prejudices by spreading them around.

As for that cloud discussion even the IPCC concedes substantial ignorance in that area so it is clearly a key issue and it is being discussed at WUWT so breezy is right.

Sorry Stephen, I thought this was a Forum for people to express their views?   You express yours frequently enough.

WUWT is a sceptic site, which is precisely why the sceptics trawl its pages looking for the latest quasi-tabloid 'news' to lift and deposit in this Forum.  Whilst people do that I will continue to maintain my right to keep pointing out the inherent bias in anything that emerges from that site.