Hansen must have been asleep to let this through!





The Arctic ice melt (which isn't unusual) is not predominantly
caused by a warming globe. Hear it from NASA's Son Ngheim, whose
team has studied this very thing:



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.






Regards

Bonzo

"Kyoto was about hobbling America's economy, to give socialist
Europe a fighting chance". Margaret Wallstrom, EU Vice President
of EU Communications

On Oct 10, 11:08 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote"..."

Hey bonzo, you are misrepresenting the information, why do you need to
cut an article out of context here is the link you hacked..


http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
"NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

 10.01.07


PASADENA, Calif. - A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the
extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past
two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the
primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record
and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage....The
Arctic Ocean's shift from perennial to seasonal ice is preconditioning
the sea ice cover there for more efficient melting and further ice
reductions each summer. The shift to seasonal ice decreases the
reflectivity of Earth's surface and allows more solar energy to be
absorbed in the ice-ocean system.

The perennial sea ice pattern change was deduced by using the buoy
computing model infused with 50 years of data from drifting buoys and
measurement camps to track sea ice movement around the Arctic Ocean.
>From the 1970s through the 1990s, perennial ice declined by about
500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) each decade. Since
2000, that amount of decline has nearly tripled. "

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?