Rate of loss of Arctic Sea Ice Area per day of year

For the period covered by the satellite 2002 to 2010 the change in extent on a particular day of the year is plotted as a linear trend.
It is interesting that just before the summer melt (May) the area increases by 5000sqkm over the 9 years.
There is then a sharp fall to 20,000 sqkm loss per year in october.
The area change over the remaining year seems to be about 5000sqkm/year

Is the rise from April to may due to delayed melt? or is it spreading of melting ice?


A good misquote from ages past

I rather like the mis-quote from the Club of Rome:
the mis-quote:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
The real quote:
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
somewhat different!

Limits to growth:


IPCC stuff

According to watts:
"Pachauri’s TERI institute golf course – water hog in a city desperate for fresh water"
It may be a pack of lies but this is what TERI say:

There is a golf course and 2 cricket pitches (monoculture not good for the environment!)


CO2 saturation

An understandable explanation of CO2 and how it will not saturate:

"So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models"


Air frost days UK

From a Post deleted on WUWT (why!?)**

a plot of airforost days in the uk from a few stations:

**[snip - nice try "thefordprefect" - you are no longer welcome here when you do shape shifting, pick a name preferably your real one, and stick with it, otherwise bugger off]


More DDT guff

WHO Note for the Press No 15 28 November 2000
DDT still has an important role to play in saving lives and reducing the burden of malaria in some of the world's poorest countries, states the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the international community considers phasing it out.

More than 120 governments, inter-governmental and non-government agencies are meeting next week (December 4-9) in Johannesburg, South Africa, to finalize an international treaty to reduce and/or eliminate the production and use of 12 persistent organic pollutants, including DDT.

WHO has been working in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide treaty negotiators with information on the health and environmental issues associated with DDT as well as the current use of DDT in malaria control.

Although DDT has been banned from agricultural use in most countries since the 1970s due to its damaging effects on the environment, it continues to be used in limited quantities for public health purposes. For many malaria-affected countries, responsible DDT use is a vital strategy for preventing malaria transmission and controlling epidemics. Countries continue to use DDT primarily because they cannot afford reliable alternatives or do not have the capacity to develop them.

In order to ensure that treaty restriction on DDT will not result in an increase in malaria deaths, WHO and the Roll Back Malaria partnership (RBM) are encouraging the negotiators to support time-limited exemptions for the public health use of DDT. In addition WHO is calling for new financial resources to aid in the development of and orderly transition to cost-effective alternatives to DDT for malaria vector control.

According to Dr David Heymann, WHO Executive Director for Communicable Diseases: "Time limited exemptions are critically important to the ultimate success of this treaty. Countries that are currently using DDT for malaria vector control need the time and the resources to identify and implement the alternatives that work for them."

WHO emphasizes the importance of assuring that DDT is used only for public health vector control and in accordance with WHO guidelines.

"WHO recommends that DDT should be used only for indoor residual spraying and every step must be taken to prevent DDT from being diverted to agricultural uses," says Dr Heymann. "Projections suggest that the amounts of DDT needed for malaria control are a very small fraction of what has been used in the past for agricultural purposes."

WHO is working with malaria-affected countries and other Roll Back Malaria partners to develop a systematic approach to reducing reliance on DDT while assuring that people continue to be protected from malaria.

WHO states that reducing reliance on DDT needs to be part of an overall strategy of strengthening malaria control. There is a need building robust capacity for malaria control at country level that supports the development and utilization of a range of methods to prevent malaria transmission that are cost-effective, sustainable and rely less on chemicals in general.

In addition to the issue of exemptions, negotiators in Johannesburg will be discussing the financial and technical resources required to implement the treaty. According to Dr Heymann, "The countries that rely on DDT are some of the poorest in the world. Without additional resources they will be unable to make much progress in reducing reliance on DDT. We hope that the treaty will result in significant new funding in the coming years, in the meantime we must look to all available sources."

With the assistance of the RBM partnership, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama have already mobilized $750,000 for reducing reliance on DDT, as part of a regional project supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The partnership is also seeking resources for similar efforts across Africa and Asia
DDT leaves stains on mud walls, which was the primary
reason South Africa’s malaria control program replaced
the use of DDT in 1996 with another chemical class—
synthetic pyrethroids—although pressure from environmentalists
certainly contributed.


How much warming

From post on WUWT:

What is evident from my plot is that the period from 1985 to present does not (yet !!) conform to the general linear trend. Adding a trend line to 1985 to present gives a warming of 4.4degC/century (got it right this time I think)

The current trend in CET is negative so there is a possibility that in a decade or so there will be a return to the .3C/100year average. But can we wait to find out?

Looking at satellite data:

data: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
the channel CHLT (no longer reported – too much of an incline??!!) gives a temp increase of 11C/century.
It would be interesting to know why this channel was dropped.