Wow. Another genius sharing his wisdom with us.

First of all, “we will continue to change the climate” implies that we really are changing the climate. Sure, some “scientists” and computer nerds are telling us this, but it is just based on a hypothesis, some agenda-driven “science” and a bunch of GIGO computer studies, no facts.

Sure. Just about all the specialists in the sciences involved, thousands of them, and all the organizations they are part of, say it's happening, humans are changing the planet's climate. The National Academy says so; so does the American Geophysical Union. But what the hell do these "scientists" know?? Manaker here says they're all full of it. And he has an Internet account. Gee: I;m so glad that's settled. So many people were needlessly worried.

manacker: "Arctic sea ice extent for May 2008 was 13.18 million square kilometers, reaching the same level as in May 1989."

Right. And per the same National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) graph that you cited here:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

May 1989 was the lowest year on record since this data was collected up to that year, an has been superceeded at least twice since.

Far more importantly, the general trend since ice extant data has been collected has been a clear decrease of ice extant over time.

manacker: "The linear average rate of decline is 3.0%/decade (over the 30-year period since measurements have started). If the decline continues at this rate, it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear."

Yes - that is the trend.

manacker: "The most recent decline has however not continued at the 3.0%/decade rate, since the May 2008 extent is back to the May 1989 extent (i.e. zero net decline in 19 years)."

manacker: Do you have a substantive background in statistical trend analysis? Because if so, then not only would you know that your statement here is misleading disinformation, but you'd be disingenuous here too. Trend rates are not calculated by picking one low point out of many on a graph and then extrapolating a trend line from it, they are instead calculated by taking the data set and doing a linear regression analysis on it to determine the degree and correlation of the trend. What you are doing here instead is misleading cherry-picking.

In other words: your statement there is bullshit, manacker.

Per the same National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):

June 3, 2008

Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt

Daily ice extents in May continued to be below the long-term average and approached the low levels seen at this time last year. As discussed in our last posting, the spring ice cover is thin. One sign of thin and fairly weak ice is the formation of several polynyas in the ice pack. ...

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent for May stood at 13.18 million square kilometers (5.09 million square miles), which is 0.28 million square kilometers (0.11 million square miles) greater than May 2007, but is still 0.42 million square kilometers (0.16 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month.

Conditions in context

Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8,000 square kilometers per day (3,000 square miles per day) faster than last May. Ice extent as the month closed approached last May’s value.

Average Arctic Ocean surface air temperatures in May were generally higher than normal. While anomalies were modest (+1 to 3 degrees Celsius, +2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) over most of the region, temperatures over the Baffin Bay region were as much as 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) above normal. ...

Multi-year ice continues to be low

The relative lack of thick, resilient multi-year ice in the Arctic discussed in earlier postings finds further support in the latest analysis from the United States National Ice Center (NIC). NIC uses a variety of satellite imagery, expert analysis, and other information to provide information on the amount and quality of sea ice for ships operating in the Arctic. NIC scientist Todd Arbetter suggests that much of the first-year ice is likely to melt by the end of summer, saying that despite the total ice extent appearing normal, the relative amount of multi-year ice going into this summer is very low when compared to climatological averages. NIC has found that the relative fraction of multi-year ice in the central Arctic has plummeted since the mid-1990s, creating an Arctic prone to increased melt in summer. Arbetter said, “This may be a primary reason for record summertime minimums in recent years.” ...

Thinner ice already showing weakness

As mentioned, the thin ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean is showing signs of early breakup, with large polynyas off the coast of Alaska, the Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. Coastal polynyas are not unusual, at this time of year, but the polynyas we are currently seeing appear larger and more numerous than usual. This is partly because of the thinner, weaker ice cover.

Thorsten Markus at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has noted the size of the North Water polynya at the northern end of Baffin Bay, which typically forms in May. The polynya is much larger than normal, possibly nearing its largest area on record.

Inuit report that sea ice is starting to break up near Baffin Bay much earlier than normal this year. They have observed wide cracks in the ice already forming, according to NSIDC scientist Shari Gearheard, who lives and works in the Baffin Island hamlet of Clyde River.

Polynyas are a source of heat for the atmosphere in spring; in summer, however, they are large absorbers of solar energy. Resultant warm ocean surface waters then eat away at the ice edge, accelerating melt.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

First of all, “we will continue to change the climate” implies that we really are changing the climate. Sure, some “scientists” and computer nerds are telling us this, but it is just based on a hypothesis, some agenda-driven “science” and a bunch of GIGO computer studies, no facts. The only period where temperature and CO2 rose simultaneously is 1976-1998; otherwise the CO2/temperature correlation is weak. And correlation does not provide any evidence of causation. There are just way too many unknowns.

“Change it faster?” Stet should check the latest temperature record. It is not only not “changing faster”, it has stopped changing at all. Even the IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri recognizes the current temperature “plateau”, saying he will try to find out what is causing it and adding that he hopes it will not make people think that AGW is “hogwash”.

Manaker, do you doubt that there's a well studied relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature? This establishes a causative relationship. Correlation plus a causative mechanism isn't just an unsupported hypothesis.

What data are you looking at that shows temperature isn't changing at all?

There does seem to be a local peak lately. See the NASA data plotted at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329. Note that there were also local peaks around 1875 and 1940 - but also note the increases since then. A local peak doesn't equate to a long term trend.

If "the CO2/temperature correlation is weak", what do you make of Venus?