On Jul 7, 11:59*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Jul 6, 10:40 am, Dawlish wrote:



Notwithstanding data errors - which could always be the case and will
only come out in the wash, there has been an exceptional acceleration
of melting in the Arctic over the last few days. The ijis figures show
that over 40,000km2 of ice was lost in 3 days from 2nd to 5th July. I
can't see an ice loss of that magnitude, in that short a timespan,
anywhere in the sequence. The ice loss will show on the various sites'
graphs shortly, I would think.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

I think it is more likely to be down to synoptics rather than anything
else, but it is interesting, nevertheless. Parts of the Arctic have
some very warm uppers at the moment and a large area of high pressure
is stretched across the North pole, more than likely giving strong
sunshine (for the Arctic, albeit with a low sun, of course) 24 hours a
day.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html

There was an ice loss of 870,781 sq km during the six days between
29th June and 4th July 2007.

IMHO, there seems to be a quasi biennial shape to the ice loss, which
may be related to the QBO. * A connection between that and the Arctic
oscillation has been reported, and fits with Philip's remarks about
the +ve *SLP anomaly repeating that from two year's ago.

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair has the global temperatures increased drastically this year?

No, because sea surface temperatures are being held down by the
melting sea ice.

If you want to see a drastic increase you will have to wait for the
next big El Nino like that in 1998, or for the Arctic sea ice to melt
completely.

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair wrote:

Alastair has the global temperatures increased drastically this year?

No, because sea surface temperatures are being held down by the
melting sea ice.

If you want to see a drastic increase you will have to wait for the
next big El Nino like that in 1998, or for the Arctic sea ice to melt
completely.

It seems to me that El Nino has already building up during the past couple
of months. Also, the N Pacific is much warmer than the past couple of years
- in spite of the the statements last year that several years or decades of
cold SSTs had begun in that region. Whether this El Nino will be anything
like 1997-8 or more like 2006 is anyone's guess.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On Jul 7, 3:10*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
Alastair wrote:
Alastair has the global temperatures increased drastically this year?

No, because sea surface temperatures are being held down by the
melting sea ice.

If you want to see a drastic increase you will have to wait for the
next big El Nino like that in 1998, or for the Arctic sea ice to melt
completely.

It seems to me that El Nino has already building up during the past couple
of months. Also, the N Pacific is much warmer than the past couple of years
- in spite of the the statements last year that several years or decades of
cold SSTs had begun in that region. Whether this El Nino will be anything
like 1997-8 or more like 2006 is anyone's guess.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

New update from the NSIDC on this season's melting.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...



But Alastair the melt rate isn't linear every recor has ups and downs as
opposed to a stedy delcline or rise.

EXACTLY.
People keep telling you this when you claim a short term change
in some indicator that favours your stance, as you did with the
sea ice a few months ago. Such changes mean *nothing* in the
overall trend.
You can't use the opposite argument when somebody turns
it back on you!
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

more dawl**** propoganda

whats the pressure in berne doing?

were all hoping at GFS T+240 you'll be gone from here until the end of
reality.


Dawlish wrote:
Notwithstanding data errors - which could always be the case and will
only come out in the wash, there has been an exceptional acceleration
of melting in the Arctic over the last few days. The ijis figures show
that over 40,000km2 of ice was lost in 3 days from 2nd to 5th July. I
can't see an ice loss of that magnitude, in that short a timespan,
anywhere in the sequence. The ice loss will show on the various sites'
graphs shortly, I would think.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

I think it is more likely to be down to synoptics rather than anything
else, but it is interesting, nevertheless. Parts of the Arctic have
some very warm uppers at the moment and a large area of high pressure
is stretched across the North pole, more than likely giving strong
sunshine (for the Arctic, albeit with a low sun, of course) 24 hours a
day.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...



But Alastair the melt rate isn't linear every recor has ups and downs as
opposed to a stedy delcline or rise.

EXACTLY.
People keep telling you this when you claim a short term change
in some indicator that favours your stance, as you did with the
sea ice a few months ago. Such changes mean *nothing* in the
overall trend.
You can't use the opposite argument when somebody turns
it back on you!
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire



Coilin every time the data shows anything like a downward trend some of
youare all over it like a rash. I'm saying nowt now until October.
160m asl

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...



But Alastair the melt rate isn't linear every recor has ups and downs as
opposed to a stedy delcline or rise.

EXACTLY.
People keep telling you this when you claim a short term change
in some indicator that favours your stance, as you did with the
sea ice a few months ago. Such changes mean *nothing* in the
overall trend.
You can't use the opposite argument when somebody turns
it back on you!
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire



Coilin every time the data shows anything like a downward trend some of
youare all over it like a rash. I'm saying nowt now until October.

And everytime it shows an *upward* tend you aren't??
Like you were a few months ago with the sea ice extent?

Short term anomolies which might seem to be evidence either
for or against GW are meaningless. It's the long term trend that matters.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Col" wrote in message
news

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...



But Alastair the melt rate isn't linear every recor has ups and downs
as opposed to a stedy delcline or rise.

EXACTLY.
People keep telling you this when you claim a short term change
in some indicator that favours your stance, as you did with the
sea ice a few months ago. Such changes mean *nothing* in the
overall trend.
You can't use the opposite argument when somebody turns
it back on you!
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire



Coilin every time the data shows anything like a downward trend some of
youare all over it like a rash. I'm saying nowt now until October.

And everytime it shows an *upward* tend you aren't??
Like you were a few months ago with the sea ice extent?

Short term anomolies which might seem to be evidence either
for or against GW are meaningless. It's the long term trend that matters.
--
Col

I think there are two camps here you lot and me, as I've said under my last
post heading Yays and Nays.
..

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

I think there are two camps here you lot and me, as I've said under my
last
post heading Yays and Nays.

I agree. There are those who study the evidence and make a rational
judgement - and then there's you.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...


And everytime it shows an *upward* tend you aren't??
Like you were a few months ago with the sea ice extent?

Short term anomolies which might seem to be evidence either
for or against GW are meaningless. It's the long term trend that matters.
--
Col

I think there are two camps here you lot and me, as I've said under my
last post heading Yays and Nays.

So no proper reply then?
Thought not.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl