Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker

MailOnline ^ | August 31,2014 | David Rose

[az_gila]

“And despite hard facts”

2 years of hard facts is not the same as 30 years of hard facts.

And of course nobody can dispute the possibility that the last 2 years is the beginning of a new 30 year trend that results in 2040 having the same amount of ice as there was in 1980

---

And it can all be in how you draw the data presented. The same 30 years

Your curved line chart looks far scarier than the actual data from the Danish Ice tracking folks -

And you could almost interpret the last few years an an uptick, not and exponential decline...:^)

http://arctic-roos.org/

[HotHunt]

I am unable to recall anything he has said or done that contradicts what I wrote. I am not being sarcastic.

[DuncanWaring]

Very well.

I apologize for any offense I may have caused.

[Ben Ficklin]

That's the difference between measuring it exponentially or linearly(arithmetically).

This diagram shows growth so flip it over to show reduction.

[Ben Ficklin]

"That Obama says he is going to take unilateral action....."

That's not true. It is being driven by court decisions, so you need to look at the SCOTUS rulings on CO2 in 2007, 2011, and 2014.

[bikerman]

Call for Al Gore on the red phone.

[az_gila]

That's the difference between measuring it exponentially or linearly(arithmetically).

This diagram shows growth so flip it over to show reduction.

{snip}

---

Yes, but your example shows two entirely different sets of numbers,

The chart I showed is essentially the same number sequence (ice level over 30 years) as the scary exponential one...:^)

[Arrowhead1952]

LOL...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[HotHunt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/27/obama-reportedly-plotting-end-run-around-congress-on-global-climate-change-deal/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/27/obamas-gambit-of-escalation-on-climate-change/

[Ben Ficklin]

Good example. Both the NYT article and the Wapo article mention the lawsuits/court. The Fox news article links to the NYT article.

Briefly: The CO2 regs on new permits were established in 2010, which resulted in a huge lawsuit, which SCOTUS ruled on in favor of Obama/EPA last June, about 6 weeks ago.

The CO2 regs on existing permits were established this past June. Two lawsuits have already been filed and likely more will be filed so it will have to go all the way back to SCOTUS.

The GOP made a decision on this(and many other issues) in 2009 and 2010. They thought that could delay this in court long enough that they could recapture both Congress and the presidency then implement what they wanted.

The GOP was able to recapture the House in 2010, but not the Senate. In 2012 they were not able to take the senate or the presidency. Now, the plan is to take the senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016.

[HotHunt]

Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. Trying to explain why Obama is trying to ram his climate crap down our and the world’s collective throats, still does not get around the fact that he is going to go at it unilaterally, without Congressional approval. He’s doing this because of his far-left ideological agenda, not because the country wants or needs it or the Senate would approve of it. He whines that Putin and Russia are going after Crimea and the Ukraine illegally, but then acts on his own illegally on his own pet issues.

The whole thing may be moot anyway because to get around the need for Senate ratification, he is not going after a full-blown treaty that would need their approval, but a “name and shame” approach to get offending countries to comply. Typical of the faculty lounge leftist, he thinks talk will get the people to come around to doing what he wants without any enforcement mechanism. This approach has failed for him and others before him, and will fail again.

The “why” he is going about this UN deal without Senate approval is not important. The fact that he’s is trying to unilaterally circumvent the law to do it, is important. This is a country of laws which, as a poor scholar of the constitution, he seems to have skipped class when that was being taught at Harvard. If he wants to rule by fiat, let him go somewhere else to do it, like Venezuela. I hear it may have an opening to replace the failed former bus driver dictator wannabe down there that Obama can apply for.

[Ben Ficklin]

It is better to plot it exponentially because of "cause and effect"

The premise is that ice reduction is the effect rising CO2 levels which is the effect of population growth.

So if you depict population as exponential growth(which is imperative), then CO2 levels and ice reduction should also depicted exponentially