I would like to add that considering the extensive loss of multi-year-ice due to abnormal wind patterns during the 2007 melt season it is rather remarkable that the recovery is going so well. Extrapolating the curve for 2009-2010 in your diagram it seems likely that the ice extent will soon be within 2 standard deviations from the 1979-2000 average. It will of course take another one or two years to build up really thick ice again, but the present cooling trend will help there.

Well, if you do not believe me perhaps you will believe NASA?
“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years 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,” Nghiem said. ”

Link: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html .

And as can be seen from the Danish link I gave previously the ice extent is quite normal for this time of year, compared to all years since 2002. The link again: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm .

Your claim is looking rather false!:

‘The summer melt showed that the arctic ice is recovering nicely from the low of 2007, which by the way was NOT caused by melting but by a rarely occuring wind pattern which simply blew away a lot of arctic ice.’

Re: ‘arctic ice is recovering nicely from the low of 2007′.
Around the 13th November, Arctic sea ice extent fell briefly to a new low for that time of year, below that of 2007. It is clear that since 2006 i.e. for 3 successive years, the majority of the time the Arctic sea ice extent has remained significantly below the mean minus 2 standard deviations. I’ll leave you to figure out why.

Essentially your claims are not borne-out when compared with the facts!

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

Why hasn’t Barry Brook presented the latest satellite images available with his story?

Sorry, just realised that link will be behind a paywall for most of you. An alternative version is visible here. Note I do not recommend scrolling down to the comments if you are of a sensitive or volatile disposition.

Of course, all of this can be rendered redundant by reality very quickly; for up-to-the-minute observations you can always go here.

If I’m to believe this fellow then it is all too late !

Scientists understand that about 75% of the world’s volcanic activity occurs underwater in the world’s deep oceanic basins, up to depths of 2.5 miles. At present the only group to be seriously studing them is the NOAA under their Vents Program and while they are making progress they have a lot of ground to cover.

As far as a curious coincidence goes, we all know volcanics release a large amount of CO2 (and hydrocarbons strangely enough) take another look at the Keeling Curve and you will notice how linear it is. Why can’t we see the variations that come about through changes due to economic cycles?

The IPCC relies on the Kaya Identity to calculate human sourced CO2, the main flaw in this calculation is the reliance on GDP as an indicator of carbon producing activity. You only need to at Australia’s GDP to know that the manufacturing base that once was has been replaced by the service and finance sectors. Essentially the faster the money flows the higher the GDP – which bears no direct relationship to the release of CO2. I digress..

The surface of the moon is more studied that that of earth. Science has little understanding of the forces at work in the earths core, in fact science does not even fully understand gravity (the most sophisticated device we have to measure it is a spring on a piece of string:-) nor where it goes (M theory, Unified String Theory etc). Yet, through the UN, we are told that science has all the answers – the debate is over. Unfortunately the climate models are flawed and I don’t believe that renewables are the future. If there was going to be serious debate about reducing CO2 then it would include Nuclear, you just need to ask yourself why it is not being considered.

Forget about the vote, maybe you’d like to provide some evidence that there’s such a thing as a broadcast license over which the American Meteorological Association has any control.

Actually, come to think of it, perhaps you’d like to provide some evidence that there is in fact such an organistion as “The American Meteorological Association”.

Then after you’ve done that we can figure out whether this alleged vote ever occurred.