A good place to start would
be changes in the current directions in the Arctic
Ocean or changes in the depth circulation of
fresh and denser salt water with the seasons.
Another influence to consider is the drift of
almost 1500 km in the North Magnetic Pole that
has occurred since 1969 when a “Jerk” was
recorder that increased the rate of migration in
the NMP. Today, the North Magnetic Pole is
almost located near 86 degree North Latitude,
125 degree West Longitude, within the Arctic
Sea. In 1970, the Latitude and Longitude were
approximately 75.5 deg North and 101 deg
West, respectively. Has this migration of the
North Magnetic Pole had an induced EMF effect on the
circulation currents in the Arctic Ocean which in
turn has increased the temperature of the Arctic
Ocean affecting the melting and generation of
thinner pack ice in the 1990’s and early 2000’s
time frame, thus contributing to a warming of the
Arctic Sea? It is noted here that pack ice froze
over earlier in 2008 than in 2007, almost being
completely frozen over by the end of October
2008 except near the entrance to the Bering
Straits. This year, it will be interesting to see
how much melting occurs by mid September in
the Arctic Sea and how fast is freezes over
again.

What ever the reason for the advanced melting and
thinning of the Arctic sea ice, the “Ibuki” satellite will
tell the facts on CO2 and methane concentrations
world wide when it starts transmitting its data in 2010.

You’re doubt is right. That isn’t right. Obviously a climate church believer. (I’ve heard that name before.) Anyway Flanagan about 2007 also says: “THE record year”, but in June 2007 the data was above the lowest year (JAXA).

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

It’s btw funny that the climate church (or is “warming church” a better name?) and its believers puts so much effort in the Arctic ice (and the Antarctica just happen to be of no interrest, except a small little part of it). They don’t bother about science. All glaciologists who says this this is all about patterns in weather and sea currents and has nothing to do with radiation from the sky they don’t even comment. I guess they do what they have to do. Their message is that science is settled, and there’s “consensus” of invented catastrophes. This is apologetic business.

The essence of climate cretinism is that CO2 is driving a physical/chemical reaction that is warming the planet. But one must ask, how can this reaction be present when it has clearly gone AWOL for a number of decades, ie from 1940 to 1976 and again from 1998 to present?

And if it is present then why isn’t the IPCC investigating what it was that turned it on and off in the past. Why would a sane body of people bother to tinker with the elements of this reaction when it is clear that the entire reaction can be turned off?

I am unimpressed with arguments about the exact extent of Arctic sea ice. Whether it is going up or down says practically nothing about global warming and CO2.

Ice extent has always fluctuated. The evidence is extensive, independent of any AGW debate and absolutely unambiguous and human beings had nothing to do with it – that is a matter of fact.

Before advancing explanations for a postulated problem with global climate, commonly referred to these days as AGW, evidence is required that shows that there is something different about the present climate which invites investigation and explanation.

The climate has become hotter (and colder) at a greater rate than it is now changing. Ocean levels have been much higher (and lower) and have changed at greater rates than they now are. Through all of this, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been much higher (but not much lower) than they now are. All of this happened without the assistance or otherwise of human beings.

No evidence is adduced that shows anything happening with global climate that is outside the known range of climate change. Without evidence of a problem, proposed solutions are fatuous – non-solutions to a non-problem – as someone once said.

In the end, credulity and ignorance married to a penchant for belief in catastrophism, rumour and conspiracy theory, are no substitute for cold hard facts.

Is that right?

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png