From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-younger.html

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-younger.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.75% below the 1979-2000 average does not exactly scream crisis to me.

Also "for centuries and maybe thousands of years" when good data only goes
back to 1979?

On Apr 7, 3:42*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge...

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

On Apr 7, 6:58 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:



From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge...

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

On Apr 7, 6:57*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:58 am, Mr Right wrote:





On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge....

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

No, you don't see anything.

Do you still think that humans are herbivores.

Did you prove it with your illogical incorrect hypothesis testing
method.

On Apr 6, 11:57*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:58 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge....

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

Reading is just not a fossil fool thing.
Fossil fools read my posts less than half
of the time before they comment. James
does not even bother to read what he cut
and pastes, let alone read your replies
to his posts.

National Geographic is enviromental religion -- evil humans destroying the earth.

"BobLl" wrote in message ...

4.75% below the 1979-2000 average does not exactly scream crisis to me.

Also "for centuries and maybe thousands of years" when good data only goes
back to 1979?

BobLl wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three
decades, though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been
otherwise closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries
and maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-younger.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.75% below the 1979-2000 average does not exactly scream crisis to
me.
Also "for centuries and maybe thousands of years" when good data only
goes back to 1979?

1979? lol Why lie?

Mr Right wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three
decades, though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been
otherwise closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries
and maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge...

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

You are claiming the rest of the planet has sea ice? lol

Mr. right - as dumb as they come.

On Apr 7, 10:48 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:57 pm, JohnM wrote:



On Apr 7, 6:58 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

From the National Geographic article:

This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a
dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least
Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite
records began in 1979.

[ . . . ]

"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where
it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.

But he remains skeptical that enough of the younger ice could survive
coming summers to make up for losses of older ice.

"This is not something that can be done in a couple of cold winters.
We're way below where we used to be, and it would take many years to
get back to where we were in the 1980s."

[ . . . ]

Comprehensive Arctic satellite data stretches back some three decades,
though some regions near Alaska and Siberia have been otherwise
closely monitored since the 1950s.

Data from the rest of the 20th century, and previous centuries, are
far less comprehensive. But scientists do have reports of ice cover
from shipping records and other historic documents.

"It's been a long time since we've seen so much open water," said Ron
Lindsay of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.

"It really is unprecedented, what we've been seeing, for centuries and
maybe thousands of years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sea-ice-younge...

Does this doofus think that the Arctic is the globe?

Roger likes to tell everybody that they can't use local data to
disprove AGW.

So what does Roger do here. Tries to use local data to prove AGW.

Who is a hypocrite, Roger?

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

I see you didn't bother to read Roger's post, Mr Wrong.

No, you don't see anything.

Do you still think that humans are herbivores.

Did you prove it with your illogical incorrect hypothesis testing
method.

Aha. I see. Respond to people who point up your errors by posting in a
different thread and hope no-one notices. Well the original still
there in the archives if you've got the balls to answer. Thought not.