« Open Thread | Main | Washington State Voters Disenfranchised »

Nice photo of that little weasel.

It's amazing how little weakling punks like Goebbles, Himmler, Hitler and the big fat junky Goering could do so much damage.

I guess that's what a powerful collectivist State can facilitate.

This data isn't sufficient...there's no error range included.
The beginning ice for 2009 is within range of other years, but along with 2005 at the nadir, if the ice for 2007 and 2008 is out of range, then that could be interpreted as consistent with a warming trend.

AL GORE,GREENPEACE,GREEN MOONBATS THEIR ALL A BUNCH OF GREEN LIARS

Global Warming certainly has much in common with Eugenics in terms of scientific legitimacy.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Winston Churchill.
This is the essence of the fight against the Leftist-enviro agenda. We are still getting our pants on to alert the public on the truth.....

Someone should create Al Gore as the wicked witch in the Wizard of OZ screaming "I'm melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. ..."

As Chancellor of Germany (May 30 - June 1, 1945), and former Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, I can assure you good people that this pissant posseur al gore is nothing to consern yourselves about. He is strictly an amateur with a loud mouth. Why in my day I would have personally taken him out back and had him shot for being stupid.

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Reminded me of Barry's NEW stance on the TEA PARTIES!

OK, OK, OK,
Theyres nothing to see here,move along,

DONT LOOK OVER THERE!!

"This data isn't sufficient...there's no error range included.
The beginning ice for 2009 is within range of other years, but along with 2005 at the nadir, if the ice for 2007 and 2008 is out of range, then that could be interpreted as consistent with a warming trend."

Fiberal this is the actual observation from the IARC in the Arctic. Therefore there might not even be an error. Here is the original chart. It updates daily, if anybody wants to bookmark it:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

I agree that 2007/2008 are lower than the rest of the range values. But look where we are now. The point being that you cannot conclusively say this or that trend is occurring from this data.

Just compare this data with what is being said in those story links by supposed science journals.

tell me something i dont know, here it is, spring in cleveland and its freezing!

any more of this global waring will have us all living in igloos!

There is always error present in observations, as instruments are never perfect. It's a nice chart, but I'd have to know their expected error, as well as what kind of data they have that wasn't just the last 10 years. It would also be handy to have the actual numeric data, to perform statistic analysis. You're right that nothing's conclusive from the picture, but that's because the picture doesn't tell enough of the story.

Hah, "error range". Since when has a lib ever really cared about an error bar or standard deviation unless it suited his or her ends. All they ever do is bend the data to fit their socialistic, moonbat, enviro-wackjob ends. Prince Albert is the High Priest of this technique.

Tell me another, whilst I sip my mint julep.

When looking at the chart in the manner of seeing the forest instead of all the trees there are two pieces of information. The first is that ice extent correlates to the cyclic variations caused by the tilt of the Earth and the second being the minor fluctuations off the trend of the data is most likely due to solar output variations causing the curve of the graph, summer warmth inhibits growth and and winter's chill promotes it.

The one thing that cannot be deduced from it is Man's insignificant effect via the atmosphere on the melting of such a large mass of ice

My money goes on a huge nuclear furnace 4 light seconds wide that is the source of all external heat warming the surface of the planet. That's most likely the culprit that dropped the nut on algore's head sending him screaming into the streets that we are all gonna die. Indeed we are but not from being inundated by melted sea ice that has already displaced the ocean water that creates our shorelines. Those are where they will be even if all sea ice melts.

Memories are short. They count on this!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/#more-7368

Also it should be mentioned that all of this global warming falacy is taught as fact in all of our schools, indoctrinating our youth into believing that the human race is evil and that progress means selfishly destroying the environment. That way no one will work hard, and everyone will need to beg the government for money!

ADOLPH HITLER WAS A ENVIROMENTALIST

Air2air,

Sure you do.


You have an intrinsic error term at each time point. That's why you see jitter in the curves.

So if you take a measurment, let's say on Feb 28 every 8 years, then your standard error at each time point is represented by (the sum of each Feb 28 measurement minus the average of the measurements for Feb 28)squared, divided by [SQRT(8-1)].
Then if you did this calculation across all observations, you could then superimpose a continual SE sleeve over the curves.

The curves mean zero without an accounting of a standard error.

The gobal warming trend became an Anthropogenic caused problem, when government representives in the IPCC, with monetary agendas and biases,used cherry picked data and then formed hypothetical worst case senario events,determined by using Global Computer Models that are filled with uncertainties and no proof of reliabiity to conclude what the speculative temperature might be were the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to doube ie; climate sensitivity.

In other words,if you use air conditioning or a night light for your child, you should be held legally liable (payable in the form of a carbon tax) for the fooding you caused in Bangladesh do to your selfish, greedy contribution to climate change.

And if you don't believe it, then you are a right wing, strawman arguing, ad hominem attacking, holocaust denying, flat earh believing, neocon, capitalistic, fox watching, limbaugh loving brainwashed twit.

So there.

Fiberal I am not a statistician, but I would throw the following back to you:

1. No matter what the error is or is not, the data is observations taken by the Artic Research Center. It is not an "interpretation" or calculation as the science journals rave.

2. You can plainly see that for anyone to attempt a prediction based on this data is laughable.

3. If there is a standard error, all we can do is trust that the IARC knows what they are doing after a decade of observations.

4. Virtually all the charts we all see day to day don't show error ranges. I didn't know that the lack of an error range disqualifies a chart. I know it is an enhancement and an additional detail level, but then if the base data were unsound, why not just eliminate it and just show the error range?

5. Jitter in the curves can be caused by many types of smoothing, moving averages, etc. etc. It may just be interpolation between points. Again I trust that IARC knows how to chart their data, since it's why they're there.

6. Your concern (I think) has been the method of charting the data. Let's imagine there is an error of some kind. It would not matter, because if the error is generic we would get similar results, as long as the chart traces are spot on to the numbers and not excessively smoothed or averaged.

"ADOLPH HITLER WAS A ENVIROMENTALIST

Posted by: Flu-Bird at April 30, 2009 8:13 PM"

Was he? I didn't know that, but nothing would surprise me about that guy.

Along similar lines, he was a vegetarian and loved to hassle meat eaters at the dinner table in that smug way leftists do things. He'd call soup "corpse tea" while guests were having a spoonful and things like that.

I'm a bit confused, it is May 1st 2009 and we are reporting ice shelf levels for December 2009 (no est. on chart) This is worthness as an accurate data source. Much like the so called advocates of global climate change

Respectfully Submitted by:

Swine2K

Swine - yes it is initially confusing. Read the larger version and it's clearer:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Air2air,

1. No matter what the error is or is not, the data is observations taken by the Artic Research Center. It is not an "interpretation" or calculation as the science journals rave.
Agreed. This is empirical data (observational) and not modeling which is what I think you are getting to. BTW modeling has a tremedous amount of lattitude based on first assumptions. Models are almost useless without a complete understanding of those assumptions.


2. You can plainly see that for anyone to attempt a prediction based on this data is laughable.

Depends on the prediction to be made. But yes, I did snicker a bit when I saw it


3. If there is a standard error, all we can do is trust that the IARC knows what they are doing after a decade of observations.

There IS an intrinsic SE between the curves (go back to my last post). And no, you absolutely DO NOT trust any organization, or scientist, or politician, or me or anyone else making a claim until you have used a hefty dose of skepticism and an appropriate analysis to thoroughly examine what is being claimed.


4. Virtually all the charts we all see day to day don't show error ranges.
?


I didn't know that the lack of an error range disqualifies a chart.
An error range tells you when something is anomolous to the larger set of data. The biggest problem GW advocates have is that none of the observations about global temperature intervals have values that fall outside a normal (expected) range. What they are exercised about is probably a naturally-occuring increase in temperature that happens to be coincident with the political opportunism of today.


I know it is an enhancement and an additional detail level, but then if the base data were unsound, why not just eliminate it and just show the error range?
The error is based on the data, but you could just show error bars or error sleeve bc the averages would be the midpoint.


5. Jitter in the curves can be caused by many types of smoothing, moving averages, etc. etc. It may just be interpolation between points.
The jitter is between the 7-8 curves for any one time point, not the wavyness of the individual curves.


Again I trust that IARC knows how to chart their data, since it's why they're there. You really need to think about this viewpoint; (see answer to #3)


6. Your concern (I think) has been the method of charting the data. Let's imagine there is an error of some kind. It would not matter, because if the error is generic we would get similar results, as long as the chart traces are spot on to the numbers and not excessively smoothed or averaged.

You’ve lost me

"The red line indicates that we have the highest observed Arctic ice levels in years."

False. That’s an absolute lie. The red line (representing 2009) is distinctly below the lines for 2003 and 2008. The red line represents no kind of maximum.

Amazingly, 'Van Helsing' has the unmitigated gall to claim that it is other people who are employing the "Big Lie" technique.

The simple fact is that there is no lie, no matter how blatant, that wingnut deniers like 'Van Helsing' will not tell to bolster their fantasy worldviews.

I am amazed no one pointed out before meatbrain that this graph clearly indicates that sea ice levels are *not* at their highest in years. Anyone who cannot see otherwise at a glance simply cannot read a simple graph, or does not understand that higher numbers imply "more" and lower numbers "less."

Regardless of anyone's beliefs about climate change (and this site is plainly a locus of laughable denialism), to make the claim the writer of this post did is just glaringly ignorant.