I had a look a the site the bob gets his data from - I can see why he only went as far back as 2008, it suits his ill informed argument that the ice isn't thinning.....here's 2007 for example.

I rest my case, whilst the Ice was thicker in the very centre and in smaller areas, today the Ice is thicker over a wider area and as can be clearly seen from 2008 it has been Thickening, you cannot deny that......

I had a look a the site the bob gets his data from - I can see why he only went as far back as 2008, it suits his ill informed argument that the ice isn't thinning.....here's 2007 for example.

I rest my case, whilst the Ice was thicker in the very centre and in smaller areas, today the Ice is thicker over a wider area and as can be clearly seen from 2008 it has been Thickening, you cannot deny that......

You're picking a single point in time over a 3 year period - that tells us nothing, surely you can see that. To follow your argument how about march 15 (randomly chosen) in 2009, 2008 and 2000 - 2000 looks thicker to me don't you think? However, it's too short a time period so I'm not going to reach a conclusion on it

---

I had a look a the site the bob gets his data from - I can see why he only went as far back as 2008, it suits his ill informed argument that the ice isn't thinning.....here's 2007 for example.

I rest my case, whilst the Ice was thicker in the very centre and in smaller areas, today the Ice is thicker over a wider area and as can be clearly seen from 2008 it has been Thickening, you cannot deny that......

You're picking a single point in time over a 3 year period - that tells us nothing, surely you can see that. To follow your argument how about march 15 (randomly chosen) in 2009, 2008 and 2000 - 2000 looks thicker to me don't you think? However, it's too short a time period so I'm not going to reach a conclusion on it

No, it is clear that Arctic declined, with a peak lowest extent in 2007 and by the looks of it peaked at its thinnest in 2008, since then though we have seen a steady increase, it may only be 3 years, but we will find out over the next few years if the Arctic recovery continues. However there is some alarmist nonsense being posted as it is clear that the RECENT trend is for a recovery..... 

I had a look a the site the bob gets his data from - I can see why he only went as far back as 2008, it suits his ill informed argument that the ice isn't thinning.....here's 2007 for example.

I rest my case, whilst the Ice was thicker in the very centre and in smaller areas, today the Ice is thicker over a wider area and as can be clearly seen from 2008 it has been Thickening, you cannot deny that......

You're picking a single point in time over a 3 year period - that tells us nothing, surely you can see that. To follow your argument how about march 15 (randomly chosen) in 2009, 2008 and 2000 - 2000 looks thicker to me don't you think? However, it's too short a time period so I'm not going to reach a conclusion on it

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I hope you're right....I just think 3 years is too short so let's see what happens over the next 10

 

---

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ithi.html

Hi Bob!

Above is the prediction for ice thickness on the 12th. Below is the sat image of the same day

http://www.woksat.info/etcsk12/sk12-1154-d-sv.html

Note the ice on the svalbard coast. PIPs has a red blob of 5m+ ice but i can't see any ice in that area.

Which do we believe?

---

I hope that's not cherry picking
I expect that If you were lookin for it you could find places the other way round?

---

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ithi.html

Hi Bob!

Above is the prediction for ice thickness on the 12th. Below is the sat image of the same day

http://www.woksat.info/etcsk12/sk12-1154-d-sv.html

Note the ice on the svalbard coast. PIPs has a red blob of 5m+ ice but i can't see any ice in that area.

Which do we believe?

Both? If you zoom right in you will see the break just by the N coast - although it's hard to pick up.

Are you saying we should discount all the satellite data for calculating ice thickness (and ergo volume). If so we cannot comment on the volume at all. Or is it just the data you don't agree with?

---

Nah! just being impatient for our Cryosat2 data as the 'bod's' have the thickness umpteen times a day already (to within 1cm) and we're stuck with the PIPs algorithm

The final phase of it's commissioning is now over so why haven't we got our info yet???

I'll be pleased to get the Greenland Data too esp. since the paper showing that the water peculating through the ice sheets can raise the core temp over a matter of years and not the millenia/hundreds of years we were working on.

---

Sorry, I meant to put a smiley at the end of my previous post (and it appears a bit more hostile than I had intended to), so apologies.

---

I thought that this was a rather nice story and once again with the same message.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1108/1224282865442.html

 

---

Sorry, can't bear to read a piece which starts by asserting Arctic is doomed and it's all because 'we live like Gods'

---

Sorry, can't bear to read a piece which starts by asserting Arctic is doomed and it's all because 'we live like Gods'

Well, at least my mind is open to reading things that at first glance appear not worthy of the effort.

Perhaps I should revert to being equally intransigent, Four?

---

Sorry, can't bear to read a piece which starts by asserting Arctic is doomed and it's all because 'we live like Gods'

I agree, the message of the piece maybe about how wonderful the experience was, how ever the opening statement was just pathetic in my view..

All these reports about the arctic never returning to it's former state and in particular, the rate of rapid melting resulting in perhaps no ice being left in 10 years will be left in tatters if the ice remains unchanged or indeed grows. The grave has been dug and if temperatures and ice extent fails to fall in line with what the alarmist predictions state, who will it be with egg on their faces?

---

All these reports about the arctic never returning to it's former state and in particular, the rate of rapid melting resulting in perhaps no ice being left in 10 years will be left in tatters if the ice remains unchanged or indeed grows. The grave has been dug and if temperatures and ice extent fails to fall in line with what the alarmist predictions state, who will it be with egg on their faces?

People like me.

But, surely you realise people like me know that if we're wrong we'll be, well, wrong?

And if you're wrong you'll be...wrong

---

All these reports about the arctic never returning to it's former state and in particular, the rate of rapid melting resulting in perhaps no ice being left in 10 years will be left in tatters if the ice remains unchanged or indeed grows. The grave has been dug and if temperatures and ice extent fails to fall in line with what the alarmist predictions state, who will it be with egg on their faces?

People like me.

But, surely you realise people like me know that if we're wrong we'll be, well, wrong?

And if you're wrong you'll be...wrong

Of course; one set of camps will be wrong and I am certain that the arctic ice will still be there in 10 years. I will give you odds of 1 million to one!!  Minimum bet is 1000 pound...

---

Sorry, can't bear to read a piece which starts by asserting Arctic is doomed and it's all because 'we live like Gods'

I agree, the message of the piece maybe about how wonderful the experience was, how ever the opening statement was just pathetic in my view..

Yep, about as pathetic as your predictable, Pavlovian reaction.

You wonder why I end up responding in kind, when the likes of you and Four reduce everything to negative emotional reactions?

This is exactly why we end up taking more extreme positions - any attempt discuss reasonably is met with more of this rubbish.

Fine, if that's the way you want to behave.  But remember you and Four are the ones taking the tone backwards again.

---

It would just be to difficult to add a careful and considered comment about the increasingly bizarre and extreme stories you have taken to posting lately.
As soon as they start talking about imminent doom and disaster it's plainly yet another overblown exaggerated junk-science propaganda story.

 

 

---

It would just be to difficult to add a careful and considered comment about the increasingly bizarre and extreme stories you have taken to posting lately.
As soon as they start talking about imminent doom and disaster it's plainly yet another overblown exaggerated junk-science propaganda story.

 

 

Well, now you know how I feel about all the c**p that you and Robertski lift from WUWT....

I'm providing some balance to the Forum, to counter threads like "The Great Global Warming Hoax'

 

 

 

---

It would just be to difficult to add a careful and considered comment about the increasingly bizarre and extreme stories you have taken to posting lately.
As soon as they start talking about imminent doom and disaster it's plainly yet another overblown exaggerated junk-science propaganda story.

 

 

I have to agree with four Gandalf, some of your recent post have been a little bizzare for you. I don't  for one minute believe, that you actually go along with half the stuff your posting at this moment in time!