THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Peter Taylor 740 wrote in part:
My word, there are so many natural cycles around! This one helps to explain why Greenland was so warm in the 30’s, and there is this report extract that I quote::
NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007. October.01.07
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
“…Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years [2006 & 2007] was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” …”
Peter Taylor, do you know if the unusual wind patterns are part of the Beaufort gyre or they are to continue or decline?
Do you think they have anything to do with Anthro-GHG
Peter Taylor 740 wrote in part:
In my view, Arctic sea ice extent depends upon the state of the Beaufort gyre – which pulses cold water from Alaska to Greenland. This gyre is driven by the temperature difference between the Alaskan shelf and the Arctic seas and it is cyclic – about 70 yrs.
My word, there are so many natural cycles around! This one helps to explain why Greenland was so warm in the 30’s, and there is this report extract that I quote::
NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007. October.01.07
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
“…Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years [2006 & 2007] was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” …”
Peter Taylor, do you know if the unusual wind patterns are part of the Beaufort gyre or they are to continue or decline?
Do you think they have anything to do with Anthro-GHG
Brute 736
No gnashing of teeth here; per capita energy use is an absolute indicator of economic prosperity; (there is nothing shameful, undesirable or unattractive about being successful and wealthy).
Good, I just wanted you to know that my only concern about gas guzzling vehicles is with supply and demand of fuel.
TONY:
I just got spammed, with a NASA link. (I think that is the cause, because way up there somewhere, the same thing happened with that same link.)
Pete, 725 & 735
I’m beginning to think that either you have no intention of making intelligent responses to my 715 & 734, or maybe you need to attend studies in English language comprehension. I notice for instance in my local library service there are instructional audio-visual training packs in English that might be useful to you.
I repeat my 715, and I’ve added numbers to each of the points thus [ONE, etc] to make it easier to separate the issues and for you to make more considered responses:
(Hint: Big change in context, technology, scope etc in 1979, and a further leap forward is planned in 2009 by the ESA)
Peter Martin,
[ONE] You are obviously not aware that it is actually quite difficult to define ‘sea-ice coverage‘. It is a bit like asking what is the length of a piece of string.
[TWO] I put to you that it is only since 1979 that we have had fairly good description and record of it. I think it is NOAA that describe sea-ice as being water that contains at least 15% of visible ice….. Something like that.
[THREE] Whatever, the ESA intend to launch Cryosat 2 early next year when it is hoped to properly measure both grounded and floating ice for the first time. An earlier attempt in 2005 was a total wipe-out. Its taking about ~3 years to build the new satellite
You might care to further your education with an introduction to the topic @:
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEM7WFMVGJE_LPcryosat_0.html
Good luck Pete; see how you go this time!
Always willing to help in your learning
David B Benson 747 wrote in part:
You could type it in a word processor and then paste it, and in the process reduce your spelling errors.
I know it’s tough, but the rest of us are coping OK it seems
BoB_FJ,
You are adopting the same tiresome pestering approach that we get from Robin.
I don’t see any question marks, so I’m not sure if you want any answers but:
1) Yes I agree that there has to be a definition of how to measure sea ice which is arbitrary. It’s a bit like measuring visibility through fog. Any definition is open to objections but nevertheless it has to be attempted. Its nothing to do with lengths of pieces of string. That’s an easy measurement by comparison.
2) I’m willing to go along with the guys from NOAA and the NSIDC.
3) Very interesting. No disagreement from me there.
A useful measure which gives us some historical evidence for the state of Arctic sea ice , is the length of time that the NW passage is open to conventional shipping and we know it wasn’t open at all before last year.
Hi JZSmith,
To your #742 I would agree with your underlying statement that it really shouldn’t matter “what the rest of the world thinks of the USA”.
I live in Switzerland. The people here are very positive about the USA in general. Although Switzerland is a much older democracy than the USA (by about 500 years), it’s current constitution and form of government were patterned after the US constitution and form of government in 1848.
Switzerland is also grateful to the USA for saving it from Nazi Germany in WWII.
Incidentally, so are most Frenchmen.
I had the opportunity to work for about a year in the Normandy. I never met a more positive and friendly bunch of people. These are the folks whose parents were there when US, Canadian and British soldiers died on their soil to free them from Nazi German occupation, and they have not forgotten it.
I also worked many years in Germany, and I found that the Germans are also thankful for how they were treated by the USA after WWII, especially how the USA kept them from being overrun by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years.
So I think that the current perception of European “dislike” of Americans is a bit shallow. Some parts of the European press may like to take potshots at the Bush administration, but, what the hell, so do some parts of the US press. That’s politics.
Obama’s recent Berlin speech was warmly received there. Some will “spin” this as evidence that the Berliners disliked the Bush administration and now eagerly embrace Obama’s message of “change” from that administration.
I do not see it quite that way. The Germans have always had a warm spot for Americans, since the WWII GIs gave them K-ration chocolates and chewing gum after they rolled in. In the ensuing years millions of Germans fled from the harsh Soviet occupation in the east to the US occupation zone in the west. When the USA saved Berlin from Soviet domination with the 1948 Berlin airlift (which Obama cleverly alluded to in his Berlin speech) this strengthened that respect and gratitude. When Kennedy told them “Ich bin ein Berliner” they loved it. And when Reagan implored Gorbachev to “take down this wall”, they were ecstatic.
The French are a bit more “cool” about it, but most of them (and particularly those in the Normandy) are forever grateful to the Americans for freeing them from Nazi Germany at the time.
So I do not believe, based on my direct experience, that there is a dislike of Americans in Europe.
And, like you, I do not think Americans should “worry” about whether or not they are “liked” in Europe.
And I agree with your analysis, “All countries, in fact, will do what is what they believe to be in their best interests, then the best interests of the world. How they ‘feel’ about the USA is, and should be, irrelevant.”
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
See you’re back again.
You asked me, “Where did you get the ‘information’ regarding satellites and water vapor measurements? The usual disinformation sites?”
No, David. I did not get this from RealClimate or any of the other “usual disinformation sites”.
It came from a Minschwaner + Dessler study which I cited earlier.
Read it and you will see.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
“Seriously the figure of 3.4% is OK for the months of June but way off generally. As I’ve shown the figures rise quickly in the following months”.
You are missing the point here with your “way off generally” double-talk, Peter. Arctic sea ice has receded by around 3% for many months, not just June. IPCC pegged it at an average 2.7% decadal decline in its 2007 SPM report.
Antarctic sea ice (which you choose to ignore, because it is not doing what you fear it “should” be doing) is gaining by around 3.7% per year.
The net impact is a global increase of sea ice.
Is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Just face the facts, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Correction: Antarctic sea ice has grown at 3.7% per decade, not per year.
JZSmith,
For once I agree with Max. Americans as individuals are usually treated just the same as anyone else, or at least no worse, when they are abroad. I’m often assumed to be American when I’m in Europe or the Asian countries and there’s never been any real problem.
Howver Americans can sometimes get into trouble by wrongly assuming that any Australians, or maybe Brits or Poles etc ,with whom they come into contact, are with them all the way in USA overseas military adventures. When that’s happened to me, I haven’t always managed to keep quiet!
Max,
You’ve obviously got a fixation on this figure of 3.4% per decade. But I don’t think you quite understand.
The link you gave in post 717 was just comaparing one June with another. That figure of 3.4% per decade is only valid for the sea ice loss as measured every June for the last 28 or so years.
If you do the same measurement every July you get 6.4%. Every August gives 8.4%. And it rises to 10% at the time of the sea ice minimum in early September.
These aren’t my figures they are from NSIDC..
Peter Martin 754,
I don’t know where to start in analysing some of your remarks. It may be quite exhausting to find how to advance your education, but let me take one first-up example, and see how we go from there:
The expression: “What is the length of a piece of string?” is usually understood in that ‘a’ is known grammatically as the ‘indefinite article‘. This has a different meaning to: “What is the length of this (or that, or John‘s etc) piece of string?” In the former, you do not know in any way, what piece of string is being discussed, and therefore you cannot possibly know what its length could possibly be. In the latter, there is a definite indication of what is to be measured, and then it becomes possible. Got it? (Ask if you need more help)
However, you did say one thing that is worth an immediate response, thus:
A useful measure which gives us some historical evidence for the state of Arctic sea ice , is the length of time that the NW passage is open to conventional shipping and we know it wasn’t open at all before last year.
OK, let’s concede that the NW passage was technically open for a month or so in 2007, especially with modern radar, satellite observation, charting, and other technologies and experience etc. Tell me, what percentage of the MILLIONS of square kilometres of total sea ice does that represent? Remember, we are concerned about net sea-ice cover, not regional variations, or brief commercial opportunities. What about sea-ice cover at the North Pole? Is that less or more important than the commercial fringes through the Canadian archipelago?
Have you ever heard of regional variability?
Here is a brief extract from the late John Daly’s website:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an extract from a BBC report of the Russian deep-dive mini subs, planting their flag beneath the North Pole in AUGUST 2007:
(An earlier breaking report said that it took Mir-I, forty minutes of searching to find a hole in the ice…. No mention of Mir-II)
So how come in AUGUST 2007, a time of allegedly unprecedented melting, there was much, much less open water at the North Pole than in MAY (Spring) 1987, twenty years earlier?
BTW: please do not ignore any sentence that does not have a ? appended to it.
ADMIN
I am trying to set up a pagination plug-in that should solve the comment overload problem which is slowing down this thread.
During the next few hours comments may not be available for short periods. If you wait for a few minutes and then reload, all should be well.
If you have any feedback or comments on this, please do NOT post them here but at Admin
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “You’ve obviously got a fixation on this figure of 3.4% per decade. But I don’t think you quite understand.”
Yes, Peter, I do understand. IPCC quotes the average rate of 2.7% decline for ALL OF THE MONTHS (not just July-September). For summer months, they quote a figure of 7.4%.
The Antarctic figure of 3.7% growth is also the average rate for ALL OF THE MONTHS.
Do you understand that?
Getting back to the Arctic number, which you strangely prefer to talk about rather than the Antarctic number, we do not know what July-September 2008 will show, but we do know what July-December 2007 and January-June 2008 showed.
And it is the average rate OVER ALL THE MONTHS over the ENTIRE period that is pertinent here, not a spot reading of last summer.
Remember, the object of the exercise is to establish a basis for the surface albedo feedback: is overall global sea ice shrinking over the long period or not?
And the good news is, Peter, it is not shrinking so there is no need to ASS-U-ME an erroneous positive surface albedo feedback, as the models cited by IPCC have done.
Now I truly think we have “beaten this horse to death”. It won’t stand up again, just because you pull out another spot reading from the past.
Regards,
Max
Max and Peter,
Thanks for your replies to my post about the “likability” factor of America and Americans. As I suspected, the view of so many Bush-haters that the USA is now much less liked and respected around the world as a result of the Bush administration is likely not likely true.
Robin, I am interested in your views on this question, especially given America’s “leadership” on global warming. It is especially interesting given some of the recent posts (above) detailing CO2 reductions in the USA versus some of the signers of Kyoto.
I remain, however, astonished at the number of liberal Americans I hear lamenting the “loss of respect” for America that the rest of the world has suffered under the Bush administration.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles).
July 17, 2008
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Brute,
2007 was a bad year for Arctic Ice, the worst year on record, so it’s not surprising that 2008 is turning out to be not quite so bad. We’ll have to wait, for another three months, and see, but it could be perhaps turn out to be the second or third worst year on record. I’m not sure if that is any real reason for celebration.
Max,
The Antarctic and Arctic are geographically quite different. The Arctic consists of a shallow ocean surrounded by land. The Antarctic is land mass surrounded by a deeper ocean. So its just about the opposite.
Most of the Arctic ice has, until recently, remained unmelted throughout the year. What is noticable about Arctic ice is not so much the melting of the ice throughout the year as the extra melting that has ocurred in summer, but that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway.
There are still areas of the Antarctic that show the large scale effects of global warming though. Of current concern is the huge Wilkins Ice Shelf which is reported to be “hanging by its last thread” to Charcot Island.
JZ Smith,
My comments were about Americans as individual people, not the geo-political entity which is often referred to as ‘America’. It would be better to reserve that term for the geographical area and think up a new one to describe its other meaning. The term American Empire , or more correctly, the USA Empire, hasn’t really caught on, but given that the USA has over 700 overseas military bases, it would seem a valid term.
There probably has been a loss of power and influence, if that’s what you mean by respect, recently. A huge overseas debt that can never be repaid is arguably the main reason for this.
Regarding your wish to answer my “tiresome” questions, here’s the way to go about it: first, read my post 625 (dated 19 July and addressed to Brute), then when you have assimilated that, go back to my post 528 (15 July) and answer the two questions (Question 1 and Question 2) set out there – you’ll see they refer back to observations you made (about “mainstream” and “fringe” science) in your post 473, dated 13 July. Thanks.
Hi Peter,
In your latest installment of our endless saga on sea ice (767), you wrote: “Most of the Arctic ice has, until recently, remained unmelted throughout the year. What is noticable about Arctic ice is not so much the melting of the ice throughout the year as the extra melting that has ocurred in summer, but that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway.”
This statement is misleading, Peter.
The satellite records started in 1979. The charts show summer melting and winter re-freezing at both ends of the globe, with no real statistical change in this seasonal pattern at either end over the 29 years or so of record:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
I find your “that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway” strange, since I thought you were of the same opinion as IPCC AR4 WG1 that climate events since 1979 were not “natural” but largely anthropogenic in nature.
You wrote: “There are still areas of the Antarctic that show the large scale effects of global warming though.”
Like colder temperatures (except around the Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf), I suppose. (Maybe this is why Antarctica is the “missing continent” in IPCC 2007 SPM, p.11).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
You wrote: “Of current concern is the huge Wilkins Ice Shelf which is reported to be “hanging by its last thread” to Charcot Island.”
“Hanging by its last thread” sounds more like media hyperbole than a scientific observation. But “huge” is definitely an overstatement, when comparing Wilkins to the overall picture. Antarctic sea ice grew by a million square kilometers and Wilkins (which has not melted, but is threatening to break into smaller pieces) represents 13,680 sq.km. of floating ice.
No matter how you turn it, this is no big deal.
And as Brute’s link to July (mid-month) status of Arctic ice:
“Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers. While extent was [1.0 million square kilometers] below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers, it was [also] 1.05 million square kilometers above the value for July 16, 2007.”
If the same 2008/2007 difference keeps up all month (i.e. we experience the same amount of retreat July 16-31, 2008 as we had July 16-31, 2007), this would put July 2008 at an anomaly of –9.2% or almost as low as it was 13 years ago in July 1995 at –9.4%. I’d call that a good recovery, Peter, if it keeps up at that rate.
We’ll see in two weeks or so what really happened in July 2008.
But it is the long-term trends that are important, and these show shrinking up north and an equivalent amount of growing down south. And since both ends grow and shrink seasonally, there is always about the same global extent of sea ice on Earth.
If you measure what is going on by the amount of media coverage it is getting, you will get a skewed view of the facts, Peter.
The “Wilkins” event is a good example of how media hype distracts from the fact that Antarctic sea ice is growing by ballyhooing a chunk of ice that has started breaking up, citing this event as evidence of manmade disaster.
Regards,
Max
A note to JZSmith:
Peter wrote (767): “My comments were about Americans as individual people, not the geo-political entity which is often referred to as ‘America’. It would be better to reserve that term for the geographical area and think up a new one to describe its other meaning. The term American Empire , or more correctly, the USA Empire, hasn’t really caught on, but given that the USA has over 700 overseas military bases, it would seem a valid term.
There probably has been a loss of power and influence, if that’s what you mean by respect, recently. A huge overseas debt that can never be repaid is arguably the main reason for this.”
I can only speak from the Swiss perspective.
The term “American Empire” has, indeed, not caught on, but the reason that this is so is because the term is not really “a valid term” (as it seems to Peter). I doubt that it “seems a valid term” to a majority of the people in the country where Peter lives (I believe Australia).
I also do not see any “loss of respect lately” here in Switzerland (as Peter seems to see in Australia?).
I do see many people who do not particularly like many policies of the current US Administration (particularly with regard to the war in Iraq). There are also some (a smaller number) that opposed the US reluctance to jump into Kyoto agreements, but a larger group actually applauded this.
The “huge overseas debt” of the USA may have an effect on the strength of the dollar (a weakness which the Swiss as well as the Euro-based Europeans benefit from directly when purchasing oil and gas on the world market). It has not resulted in a “loss of respect” or dislike for America or Americans, however. I’d say it’s actually working in the other direction. Lots of European tourists are enjoying visiting the “friendly” (and inexpensive) USA.
So JZSmith, I do not think Peter’s views represent those of Europeans (Swiss or otherwise).
I also seriously doubt that they represent those of most Australians, but would leave that for others to comment.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In your latest installment (767) of our endless saga on sea ice, you wrote: “Most of the Arctic ice has, until recently, remained unmelted throughout the year. What is noticable about Arctic ice is not so much the melting of the ice throughout the year as the extra melting that has ocurred in summer, but that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway.”
This statement is misleading, Peter.
The satellite records started in 1979. The charts show summer melting and winter re-freezing at both ends of the globe, with no real statistical change in this seasonal pattern at either end over the 29 years or so of record:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
I find your phrase “that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway” strange, since I thought you were of the same opinion as IPCC AR4 WG1 that climate events since 1979 were not “natural” but largely anthropogenic in nature.
You wrote: “There are still areas of the Antarctic that show the large scale effects of global warming though.”
Like colder temperatures (except around the Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf), I suppose. (Maybe this is why Antarctica is the “missing continent” in IPCC 2007 SPM, p.11).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
You wrote: “Of current concern is the huge Wilkins Ice Shelf which is reported to be “hanging by its last thread” to Charcot Island.”
“Hanging by its last thread” sounds more like media hyperbole than a scientific observation. But “huge” is definitely an overstatement, when comparing Wilkins to the overall picture. Antarctic sea ice grew by a million square kilometers and Wilkins (which has not melted, but is threatening to break into smaller pieces) represents 13,680 sq.km. of floating ice. A proverbial “drop in the bucket”.
No matter how you turn it, this is no big deal.
And as Brute’s link to July (mid-month) status of Arctic ice:
“Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers. While extent was [1.0 million square kilometers] below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers, it was [also] 1.05 million square kilometers above the value for July 16, 2007.”
If the same 2008/2007 difference keeps up all month (i.e. we experience the same amount of retreat July 16-31, 2008 as we had July 16-31, 2007), this would put July 2008 at an anomaly of –9.2% or almost as low as it was in July 2005 at –9.4%. I’d call that a good recovery, Peter, if it keeps up at that rate.
We’ll see in two weeks or so what really happened in July 2008.
But it is the long-term trends that are important, and these show shrinking up north and an equivalent amount of growing down south. And since both ends grow and shrink seasonally, there is always about the same global extent of sea ice on Earth.
If you measure what is going on by the amount of media coverage it is getting, you will get a skewed view of the facts, Peter.
The “Wilkins” event is a good example of how media hype distracts from the fact that Antarctic sea ice is growing by ballyhooing a chunk of ice that has started breaking up as evidence of “impending manmade disaster”.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
(Tried posting this, but it may have gotten hung up because of the links, so am posting them separately.)
In your latest installment (767) of our endless saga on sea ice, you wrote: “Most of the Arctic ice has, until recently, remained unmelted throughout the year. What is noticable about Arctic ice is not so much the melting of the ice throughout the year as the extra melting that has ocurred in summer, but that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway.”
This statement is misleading, Peter.
The satellite records started in 1979. The charts show summer melting and winter re-freezing at both ends of the globe, with no real statistical change in this seasonal pattern at either end over the 29 years or so of record:
(See Links 1 and 2)
I find your phrase “that has always happened naturally in the Antarctic anyway” strange, since I thought you were of the same opinion as IPCC AR4 WG1 that climate events since 1979 were not “natural” but largely anthropogenic in nature.
You wrote: “There are still areas of the Antarctic that show the large scale effects of global warming though.”
Like colder temperatures (except around the Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf), I suppose. (Maybe this is why Antarctica is the “missing continent” in IPCC 2007 SPM, p.11).
(see Link 3)
You wrote: “Of current concern is the huge Wilkins Ice Shelf which is reported to be “hanging by its last thread” to Charcot Island.”
“Hanging by its last thread” sounds more like media hyperbole than a scientific observation. But “huge” is definitely an overstatement, when comparing Wilkins to the overall picture. Antarctic sea ice grew by a million square kilometers and Wilkins (which has not melted, but is threatening to break into smaller pieces) represents 13,680 sq.km. of floating ice. A proverbial “drop in the bucket”.
No matter how you turn it, this is no big deal.
And as Brute’s link to July (mid-month) status of Arctic ice:
“Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers. While extent was [1.0 million square kilometers] below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers, it was [also] 1.05 million square kilometers above the value for July 16, 2007.”
If the same 2008/2007 difference keeps up all month (i.e. we experience the same amount of retreat July 16-31, 2008 as we had July 16-31, 2007), this would put July 2008 at an anomaly of –9.2% or almost as low as it was in July 2005 at –9.4%. I’d call that a good recovery, Peter, if it keeps up at that rate.
We’ll see in two weeks or so what really happened in July 2008.
But it is the long-term trends that are important, and these show shrinking up north and an equivalent amount of growing down south. And since both ends grow and shrink seasonally, there is always about the same global extent of sea ice on Earth.
If you measure what is going on by the amount of media coverage it is getting, you will get a skewed view of the facts, Peter. The “Wilkins” event is a good example of how media hype distracts from the fact that Antarctic sea ice is growing by ballyhooing a chunk of ice that has started breaking up as evidence of “impending manmade disaster”.
Regards,
Max
Link 1: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Link 2: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
Link 3: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257