tacoman25

Mother Nature can be such a buzz kill.

Runaway hyperbole feedbacks!

The honest answer is that it's an apples to oranges comparison, and no one knows for sure how extent from the first half of the 20th century compares to the satellite era. The graph above is one educated guess, but far from the only estimate. This post goes into great detail on the difficulties of comparing sea ice extent measurements back then to now: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/ You may not agree with the conclusion, but the reasoning is thorough and well laid out. What we do know for sure is that the Arctic has gone through cyclical warming and cooling periods that are much more variable than lower latitudes. In the 1980s, the Arctic was in one of its cooler phases, and given the amount of AGW to that point and total variation that the Arctic climate sees naturally, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that some of the warm phases of the Arctic earlier in the 20th century were probably warmer than the final cool phase of the 20th century. Ice extent typically follows temperature, to a certain degree.

This is somewhat true, but it really depends on what part of the 20th century you're talking about. There's evidence that the 1980s probably had close to or higher extent than the 1940s-1950s, and perhaps the 1920s as well.

One words posts are lame. Repeating the same one word post is even more lame. I've been here long enough, you should know I'm not a troll. Sometimes I just like to bring a slightly different perspective to the echo chamber. Sometimes that includes the lighter side of things.

Is joking illegal here?

Setting up for record gains in December!

"Climate flickering"...like the climate is about to shut off? Worth pointing out, this ridiculous warmth in the Arctic is also resulting in one of the coldest falls on record for much of Eurasia. Temps in parts of Russia are expected to 40-50 degrees below normal this week, with another record-breaking cold wave on the way for Asia next week.

I didn't call anyone out specifically. That wasn't the intent. Just the inconsistence in the general message. It was not based on an assumption, but very clear memories of people claiming the summer min is by far the most important thing to track.

I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary. No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand. Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.

Sorry man, you were just reading too much into what I said. Made a couple of false assumptions. And you can say nobody claimed that, but I absolutely know they did. Defend yourself sure, but it's silly to say no one here said that. And I'm not a liar.

Whole bunch of straw men here. I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline. I simply pointed out that some people on here have claimed in the past that the summer minimum, the max amount of open water, is what matters most. Inconsistent with current claims that record low extent in early November is just as significant as a record low min.

By definition, a "denier" is one who denies something. In this context, global warming. Which I never have denied. So, get your facts straight and don't call me a liar. That is unacceptable. Pretty sad that if someone even points out an inconsistency or questions something on here, the witch hunt is on.

I don't think you've been on this site nearly as long as I have. I have never once denied global warming. So you 100% don't know what you're talking about. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.

100% false.

I never said there was. Read it again. I said record fastest freeze, or a high point in the fall, I never said record high extent. You're actually the one playing "gotcha" here, but on a misunderstanding. My point was that several times on here we were told that the summer min is the most important thing, not what happens in fall, winter, etc. But now we have people, probably some of the same ones, claiming this is just as significant as a record low min.

I specifically remember members on here claiming, for one reason or another, that the summer min is WAY more meaningful than anything in the fall/winter. I'm afraid you don't speak for everyone, so no, you cannot claim there is no inconsistency.

A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters. Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min.

If fracking is driving the rise in CH4 since 2010, then what was driving the faster rise from the mid 1980s to early 1990s?

I know it's a very weak cycle, but aren't we at solar max right now?

Not for global temperatures, which is what you implied you were referring to.

You said we are "about to" see record warming. Just because one month has had record upper ocean heat content according to that source does not prove that. If not this year, then are you saying 2014 will be a record warm year? Or are you just talking about GISS temps for a month or two?

Ah, ok that's something that has changed then. But I believe it's only barely warmer than 1998, and not as warm as the GISS anomaly. And 2013 certainly will not be that warm, so it doesn't change my point to Friv - where is he coming up with the statement that we're "about to see warming past previous records"?

For RSS, UAH, and HadCRU, 1998 is still the warmest year on record. And 2013 certainly won't surpass it.

Bingo.