Hey Bravus....need a bit of your expertise here

[Bravus]

I think you'd find a lot less difference between the annual medians than between the annual minima... I'm totally happy to go with that if you are, since it's you who is trying to maximise the differences.

[olger]

Not trying a'tall. You err, not knowing the truth.

[olger]

As a professional, I like median datapoints because they seem to be the most objective. That's why people use trendlines, eh?

[Bravus]

I'll reserve further comment until the data become available again.

[Neil D]

As a professional, I like median datapoints because they seem to be the most objective. That's why people use trendlines, eh?

"Professional"...?

Professional what?

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit sarcastic, but I wasn't aware of your professional abilities/status...Most of what I see that would give credence to your claim of 'professional' is innuendo, complaints, and assertions without evidence....

oh, this isn't coming out right at all.....sorry.....

so let me tell you a story to make up for my poor observations....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...e=1&theater

[olger]

You wouldn't understand, but have a great week anyway!

rejoice always,

`G

[LifeHiscost]

Ya'll

Sarcasm needs to go down....

Your so perceptive, Stan. Wonder if these Words have any significance for the arbiters?

"“Their tongue is a deadly arrow; It speaks deceit; With his mouth one speaks peace to his neighbor, But inwardly he sets an ambush for him."Jeremiah 9:8 NASB

Even I think that's a little strong. Guess I won't make any friends here. Toodle oo.

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

so let me tell you a story to make up for my poor observations....

Toodle oo. Well, on second thought.

I thought this comment following the story was so apropros.

Quote:

And to paraphrase another story: everybody has those two dogs living inside them. Which one grows big and strong until he's running your life? THE ONE YOU FEED.[/quote']

Can't figure out why some people keep asking questions when they know they have the answer all the time.

God cares!

[Neil D]

You wouldn't understand, but have a great week anyway

When I first glanced at this, I saw -

,,but have a weak greek anyway.

and I thought, what's that? yogurt?

[Bravus]

OK, the data at the NSIDC are back, and confirm what I said above: the minimum ice extent ever was on the 16th of September, 2012, and was 3.36 million sq km.

The graph olger posted showed the minimum last year as about 2.4 million square km.

It is simply wrong, and makes the 67% claim simply wrong.

[Bravus]

Bravus claimed it wasn't 60%. That may be true, some calculations are saying 67%.

[Stan]

everyone wants to be a prophet...

[Bravus]

Not I - just take my .sig seriously.

[Tom Wetmore]

The truth is important, unless it is bad for business...

Less truth, more $$$$...

[Bravus]

September 16 extent in 2013 is 5.10 million square km: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

September 16 extent (lowest ever) in 2012 was 3.41 million square km

That is pretty much exactly a 50% difference. That's not 35% and it's not 67%.

I suspect the 60% figure was arrived at by comparing mid-August numbers from this year to mid-September numbers from this year.

Again, I'll bump this thread in a year: and eat my hat if there's a further 50% increase to 7.65 million square km.

I'll be amazed if next year's minimum is even over 5 million.

[olger]

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for a decade, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

"The IPCC graph shows that climate models [that provided the foundation for its first four Assessment Reports] predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C [post-1990]. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, "models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years,” wrote Dr. Ross McKitrick, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

g

[Bravus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

An economist, not a climate scientist, and a long-time passionate climate change denier.

I'd be very interested to see evidence for the claim that he's an IPCC reviewer.

And the claim that the global temperature rise since 1990 has been 0.1 degree is simply false.

[Bravus]

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now (1 degree F is about 0.556 degrees C)

You haven't yet acknowledged the *last* false datum you brought, olger. (2012 ice extent minimum understated by a million square kilometres)

Lurkers - if it's necessary to support claims with falsehood, and stand by falsehood, how credible are those claims?

[CoAspen]

Trolling...trolling...

[olger]

This is great.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...2015-nevermind/

Ps. Bravus is an AGW alarmist and I fully expect him to disagree with indicators that disprove IPCC predictions.

[Bravus]

You get to have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Tell the truth, shame the devil.

[Bravus]

What was the 2012 minimum Arctic ice extent? It's a very simple question of fact.

[Tom Wetmore]

This is great.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...2015-nevermind/

Deja vu...

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

Or to put it more simply, "Repeat an untruth often enough and it will be believed, even by yourself."

[olger]

This is pretty great too,

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/britain-c...mo_code=14F46-1

Onward brethren!

G

[Tom Wetmore]

This is pretty great too,

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/britain-c...mo_code=14F46-1

Onward brethren!

G

Deja vu...

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

Or to put it more simply, "Repeat an untruth often enough and it will be believed, even by yourself."