That was indeed my intent for starting a new one (that and the fact that the old one was about 20 pages long).

Perhaps Admin might lock the old one - and you can start a new one for "AGW Squabbling"....

I wish people would resize images before posting, it's really not difficult.

Ok, did you look at the link I posted? Why is there such a discrepancy?

Nothing much, it's well above recent years, about 1 million km2 more than last year at this time. 

  I wonder if you would have commented a month ago, when it was the same as last year.

Or whether you would dare to post a chart of ice volume, which is the really meaningful measure. But perhaps not, because it wouldn't fit with your agenda, would it?

 

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

You know guys the obvious solution to this bickering is to have 2 arctic ice threads. One for proponents of AGW and one for doubters. 

 

 

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

A comment pointing out the relatively healthy current state of things is then described as 'Trolling' and 'Having an Agenda'

I see. 
 

Now that is trolling Four, well done.  Just ignore the point, why don't you?

How does the state of the ice volume compare with, say, 10 years ago?

I don't know which is more frustrating, your carefully chosen observations or your mock surprise when anyone points out what you're doing.

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   I'd be pleased if you could refer us to any posts where you acknowledge the significant loss of Arctic ice.  All we seem to get is the periodic statement suggesting nothing is amiss.

Laughable really, but predictable.

Don't think so Q'? They're trying that over on netW and it stinks. merely leads to more agro? Better that 'nere the twain shall meet' and folk are barred from posting in the opposing areas? If they see something they take issue with they can discuss it in their own area and so the all important lurkers get a hassel free look at both schools of thought without the horrors that seem to evolve when both sets are let loose together.

It indeed would be nice if we could all play nice but we can't so why keep trying to find ways of allowing it only for the same old same old to evolve?

Yes it all needs discussing and ,in the end, only one side will prove to have their heads screwed on properly but until that day arrives allow the lurkers to come and glean knowledge without wading through the mire to get at the little nuggets of wisdom?

EDIT: And the 'trolls' don't get fed!

Why do that, if it's about Arctic Ice then posts about Arctic Ice should be OK without need to call people trolls because you want to indulge in wild speculation about devastating melting in two months time.
 

How does the state of the ice volume compare with, say, 10 years ago?

 

Don't think so Q'? They're trying that over on netW and it stinks. merely leads to more agro? Better that 'nere the twain shall meet' and folk are barred from posting in the opposing areas? If they see something they take issue with they can discuss it in their own area and so the all important lurkers get a hassel free look at both schools of thought without the horrors that seem to evolve when both sets are let loose together.

It indeed would be nice if we could all play nice but we can't so why keep trying to find ways of allowing it only for the same old same old to evolve?

Yes it all needs discussing and ,in the end, only one side will prove to have their heads screwed on properly but until that day arrives allow the lurkers to come and glean knowledge without wading through the mire to get at the little nuggets of wisdom?

EDIT: And the 'trolls' don't get fed!

Yes and Nevans forum looks very nice but I think he may activally ban AGW doubtets (the evidence for this is not too strong, but I know of a case where one user was banned for something that seemed relativly trivial.) Again I may be wrong there, still Nevans forum is more confirmationally biased in that sense which may be a good or a bad thing depending how you look at it.

From a personal stand point as much as this bickering irratates me, If I was a moderator no one would be banned or segregated e.c.t. Freedom of critisim and speech is more important than my arctic sea ice thread, as much as I want it 

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Why do that, if it's about Arctic Ice then posts about Arctic Ice should be OK without need to call people trolls because you want to indulge in wild speculation about devastating melting in two months time.
 

Then I suggest both factions keep posts entirely objective and factual with no implied arguments or undertones. It would be better if people stop referancing to AGW entierly (even if this is inconvienient) , if we are to have a chance of a discussion that doesnt go on wild tangents. 

And I don't know if I need to point this out but:

Trolling is defined as attempting to provoke an extreme negative response. And when it is done implicitly accusations become far more difficult. I ask that people remember that when you reply to someone you may be assumed to be making a contradiction to their argument which is why it may be intepretated as trolling. That is to say, if you are indeed simply making an unrelated factual point not using the quote button would be the prefered option. 

It's a nasty word, designed to isolate, ostracise and belittle - and you used it inappropriately

It's a nasty word, designed to isolate, ostracise and belittle - and you used it inappropriately

Regardless of the conatations, I had reason to use the word. All trolling means is an attempt to provoke an extreme negative reaction. When grey wolf was talking about the dire state of the sea ice and you respond by saying the area is better than it was in recent years, an onlooker could easily intepret that as trolling - an attempt to provoke a negative reaction from grey. In any case the argument is still propagating with no sign of any let up. 

FYI: Others may use that word to isolate, ostracise and belittle. But I hope it is clear from my posts that while I can be very critical I do not lower myself to nasty games to bulldoze my way to 'winning' a petty argument. 

As far as the Arctic is concerned there is little need to mention the initial forcing as it appears to be running under it's own steam these days? At some point in the 80's a line was crossed which made it very difficult for ice to regain it's mass and so cope with the cyclical 'perfect storm' scenarios?

Now there is no way the ice could survive a year like 07'

I must wonder if the low ice has made 'perfect storms' easier or harder to form over a season?

 you respond by saying the area is better than it was in recent years, an onlooker could easily intepret that as trolling

Your definition of Trolling and Gamdalf's definition of 'having an agenda' is actually the same thing - an unpleasant tactic to try to stop anyone posting with a different opinion. 

 you respond by saying the area is better than it was in recent years, an onlooker could easily intepret that as trolling

Why is it trolling, when it's a statement of fact.

Your definition of Trolling and Gamdalf's definition of 'having an agenda' is actually the same thing - an unpleasant tactic to try to stop anyone posting with a different opinion. 

It was implicit, thats the issue and the reason why this argument is still ongoing. It was in a quoted reply to GW, also I'm not claiming to be an innocent party here; you could argue that I was trolling by saying you were trolling. It wasn't my intention but perhaps it looked that way.

Trollception.

It's a nasty word, designed to isolate, ostracise and belittle - and you used it inappropriately

Regardless of the conatations, I had reason to use the word. All trolling means is an attempt to provoke an extreme negative reaction. When grey wolf was talking about the dire state of the sea ice and you respond by saying the area is better than it was in recent years, *an onlooker could easily intepret that as trolling - an attempt to provoke a negative reaction from grey. In any case the argument is still propagating with no sign of any let up. 

 

FYI: Others may use that word to isolate, ostracise and belittle. **But I hope it is clear from my posts that while I can be very critical I do not lower myself to nasty games to bulldoze my way to 'winning' a petty argument. 

**I agree, I have seen much worse, but, some of your statements are or are near to arrogance and as such can easily be interpreted as attempts to isolate, ostracise or belittle.

The ECMWF is signalling the dreaded dipole may be starting to appear:

http://meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf/runs/2013061212/ECH101-240.GIF?12-0

GFS suggests similar 

but NAFES ensembles do not agree

http://176.31.229.228/modeles/gens/naefs/run/naefsnh-0-0-240.png?12

They keep pressure low on the canadian side. 

CFS (if its anything to go by) suggests a cold july, again LP dominated 

http://modeles.meteociel.fr/modeles/cfs/run/monthly/cfsnh-3-7-2013.png?18

http://modeles.meteociel.fr/modeles/cfs/run/monthly/cfsnh-1-7-2013.png

Air temps will be still roughly constant in the central basin though by this time, but costal areas should be cooler than usual if this is a reasonable forecast.

The August CFS prediction is a bit harder for me to intepret, but on balance I would say it looks pretty conductive to prevent sea ice melt with lowish pressure in the centre and high pressure round the peripheries. It is also showing negative 850hpa anomolies but idk too much about that one.

It might be worth keeping track of the ice balance data from now on (even though not much interesting is happening relativly speaking). But I still cannot see any sign of a melt, things look pretty well snowcovered atm. 

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.