Ant et al.

I have much less expertise on issues of sea ice at the poles... but I will have a go: my understanding is based on an assessment, made some time ago, of data here: nsidc.org/data/seaice-index website and related links, etc.

The general trend at the Arctic over the last 30 has been one of decline in the extent of sea ice.

Al Gore claimed it would all be gone by 2014.

A record low for the satellite error (i.e. since 1978) occurred in 2007 at 4.17 million square kilometres of ice.

The last time it was this low was probably back in 1937.

The last time the Arctic was ice free was during the Holocene thermal maxima about 5,000 years ago.

Climate changes... it cycles on periodicities of 9 and 18 years, 61 years, 1,500 years and 10,000 years etc. And the volume of ice at the Arctic does not correlate well with changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

Happy to also discuss trends at the Antarctic over the last few decades and also millennia... but waiting first for some response to these few comments.

Hi Ant, at least you recognise you are trolling, or you wouldn't have done your previous post. And yes, it is trolling when you post completely unrelated links in an effort to obscure the issue the poster is trying to discuss. When you throw multiple irrelevancies in it is called the "Gish Gallop". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop It's a technique used by people who know they don't have a leg to stand on re the current issue, so let's try and start an argument over here - any argument. Jennifer has bought into it by offering to discuss Greenland ice melt. The next thing you know the BOM's incompetence will have faded into the distance.

To stop this happening I'm going to start another thread about Greenland, and you can go over there and discuss it.

@ ANT
You were not alone in being sucked-in by the popular media over the routine passage of the LNG purpose-built tanker as proof of climate change. Out of curiosity, I Googled thus: “eduard toll” passage

There were 12,800 hits. Quite a lot for an event having little real news value don’t you think, unless of course it is distorted to convey a false agenda?
It is typical of the reporting in general about global warming that has been asserted to be caused by exclusively one thing, a trace gas in the atmosphere (also distorted to CO2 = ‘climate change’ to explain away some inconvenient negative warming events)

Let me guess; your favourite newspaper is The Guardian!

Continued from 8.09 am

In the main, articles about climate change or temperature written for Online Opinion are a distraction from the real issue ... climate change, it is happening. Conspiracy theories do not provide a rational to discard science. Conspiracy theories are used to make aggressive points with virtually no real evidence to support them.

If we are not there already, it's almost getting to the stage where Rome is burning and contrarians continue to fiddle.

David provides a salient reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy#2017_GeoResJ_manuscript

Quote:

"In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview she stated that... "[i]t's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change".[15]

On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Ockham's Razor, Dr Marohasy said in 2005... "I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels".[16]"

At least when the facts change, Jennifer changes her mind ANT. What do you do?

@ALAN B Putting aside your various OFF-TOPIC obfuscations, you have at least acknowledged the fundamentals that mercury in glass thermometers (MIG) perform differently to electronic probes (regardless of calibration and software problems). This reality is among the various problems identified in Dr Marohasy’s post, so I’m still puzzled by the following: Your gotcha assertion that atmospheric pressure is problematic for MIG had me highly amused and I found some stuff for your further education. 1) Let’s propose than an extreme variation in atmospheric pressure for a given Oz location could be 980 to 1040 millibars, that’s a range of 60 over 1,000. Converting that into familiar units it is a pressure range variation of 60 x 0.00102 = 0.061 Kg-force/square cm. 2) The modulus of elasticity of glass is comparable to cast iron. Can I leave it to you to get a grip on reality now? 3) You could equally bring up all sorts of trivial obscura such as that when the mercury expands, per the gas laws, as the gas in the tube is compressed, it will instantaneously get hotter and feedback into the mercury, thus expanding it further, but non-linearly, depending on the rate of change and concurrent thermal balances, wind speed, etcetera. You could also fantasise that as the internal gas pressure varies there will be significant deflections in the glass. It’s hard to avoid the thought that you are a troll.