My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Why is Obama looking sheepish? | Main | Online petition to scrap Emissions Trading Schemes »

Comments

Geoff

And Stoat gets a fair old bashing over at the Wikipedia talk page for Hockey Stick Illusion.

I'll include a few choice comments here:

"
Connolly's edits are comparable to those made to the 'evolution' article by people with a religious faith, for the non-believer the evidence is not compelling at all, there are too many holes, both side obviously see views opposite to theirs as not being 'neutral'. Connolley and others argue in many 'climate change' related articles on Wikipedia that the AGW skeptic viewpoint is simply invalid because it's a minority view, yet he is a prolific Wikipedia contributor always suppressing alternative positions then claiming there's no debate. He routinely disrupts articles opposing his view and lost his Wikipedia admin status because of it, he is incapable of neutrality.

The book may expose valid shortcomings in the science behind the production of the 'hockey stick' graph which appears to suppress both the 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Little Ice Age', the elimination of this historically documented climate variation should of course be based on sound science, if the proxy based science has weaknesses then it and the computer models based on it should be treated with skepticism and thoroughly tested. A genuine scientist would be open to criticism of their methods, it allows the science to improve. MWP/LIA deniers like Connolley seem to either believe there's nothing left to learn, or more likely they have a preconceived view and select data to suit it (ie. not neutral).
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion

Falafulu Fisi

Gareth said [on that thread]...
In a stationary climate, the buffer was large enough to more than compensate for a run of warm years, and would be replenished by cooler years. It is now greatly reduced.

Does Gareth understand what stationary process mean? I bet not. I think that he takes the meaning of the word literally but not its mathematical meaning. When it is being applied to a dynamical system (eg - climate, economics, etc,...), its mathematical definition is adopted and not its English literal meaning.

That's the problem with warmist proponents such as Gareth, they don't stick to what they understand, but they also try to be experts on climate science.

Whitebread

Also important to note that it's got to be very cold to freeze seawater. Salt and mineral content of sea water ensures a much lower freezing point than that of freshwater

CM

>>>Does Gareth understand what stationary process mean? I bet not.<<<

You don't need to bet. You can ask him by posting in the appropriate thread.

Geoff

Off topic again, but it's nice to see Al and Tipper Gore are showing us how to live a more austere lifestyle:

"The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms."

http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103538.story


Geoff

The watermelons want to play ping-pong, but the Stoat keeps catching the ball

http://hot-topic.co.nz/feel-floes-gone-by-2016/#IDComment72145436

Richard Christie

It is worth remembering the Arctic was darn near ice free about two hundred years ago, as well, naturally

On what planet was that?

Ian Wishart

Earth. Unless you have some other preferred location for the British Admiralty:

"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

Previous catastrophic Arctic warming reports:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - 1922

Or this:

THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS? THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ALTERNATE PREVALENCE OF A SEMITROPICAL ATMOSPHERE.

June 23, 1890, Wednesday

Page 5, 1905 words

DISPLAYING FIRST PARAGRAPH - Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate Summers and open Winters through several years, culminating last Winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.

Or this:

September 1924:

MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers — Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical. NATURE is in a strange mood beyond the Arctic Circle, Glaciers are moving from their age-old beds, pouring greater quantities of ice into the sea than recorded history has known. Broad areas of land are sinking to new levels. A number of islands have disappeared.

Or this:

the most formidable fields yield to the slightest grown swell, and become disrupted into thousands of pieces; and ice of only a few weeks growth, on being assailed by a turbulent sea, is broken and annihilated with incredible celerity. Bay-ice, indeed, which for weeks has been an increasing pest to the whale-fisher, is sometimes removed in the space of a few hours. The destruction is in many cases so rapid, that to an un-experienced observer, the occurrence seems incredible, and rather an illusion of fancy, than a matter of fact. Suppose a ship immoveably fixed in bay-ice, and not the smallest opening to be seen : after a lapse of time sufficient only for a moderate repose, imagine a person rising from his bed, — when, behold, the insurmountable obstacle has vanished !

Exerpted from An Account of the Arctic Regions,
W. SCORESBY Jtm. F.R.S.E. 1820

In line with my argument that warmer ocean currents are primarily responsible, there's a very good essay I've just located by John Daly which says:

Conclusion

As we can see from recent history, both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice is certainly subject to variation. But it would be a mistake to assume that a brief period during which the Arctic is in a thinning cycle is anything more than that - a cycle. We know from past history that it has been subject to earlier retreats as suggested by the opening quote from 1817.

Part of the problem lay in the fact that useful data on ice extent and thickness only dates from the 1950s, yet our temperature record from Jan Mayen Island at the edge of the Arctic shows that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s than it was during the 1990s. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive ice data from the 1930s. Instead such data begins in the late 1950s, at a time when the Arctic was entering into the grip of a known cold spell. As that cold period ended, it is hardly surprising to find thinner ice during the latter warmer period.

There is also the strong correlation between the NAO and the state of Arctic ice, a strongly positive NAO in the last decade increasing the flow rate of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic, while it was predominantly negative during the cold period of the 1960s, resulting in a reduced flow rate of Atlantic water and thus a reduced propensity for ice melt.

The strong positive NAO of the last decade is not unprecedented. While some might wish to associate this with human-induced `climate change', it is clear from the NAO record that it was also strongly positive during the early decades of the 20th century and even earlier. In other words, the NAO is a real natural cycle, not a manifestation of `global warming'.

Variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level.

The freezing Arctic air which descended on North America and Russia during the 2000 winter shows that the Arctic atmosphere has lost none of its frigid bite, thus ensuring further renewal of sea ice.

The limits on the thickness of Arctic ice are determined by how low the air temperature can get, and on how warm and fast-moving the subsurface water is. Air temperatures measured in the Arctic region show no recent warming, thus discounting the possibility that recent thinning of ice could be caused by atmospheric warming above the ice. Rather, the thinning of ice in the 1990s is clearly associated with a warming of the sub-surface ocean, as shown by the SCICEX data, caused in whole or in part by the strong NAO increasing the flow rate of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.

Read the full essay on Arctic ice thinning here:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

AcidComments


Of interest:

Catastrophic” retreat of glaciers in Spitsbergen

I’ve been given a report on glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic that I want to share with readers. There’s some compelling evidence of glacier melting and open water in the Arctic sea in this report that I haven’t seen before.

All of these reports about sea ice and melt seems familiar, except the date, which is 1943.

There’s also a fascinating discussion about linkages between sunspots and precipitation on pages starting on page 460.

You can view the entire book here at archive.org

Oh and here’s that mention of “unprecendented in the history of the Arctic” open water from page 470:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/02/catastrophic-retreat-of-glaciers-in-spitsbergen/

Richard Christie

Not a single one of the opinions you provided comes close to supporting this delicious gem of hyperbole:
"It is worth remembering the Arctic was darn near ice free about two hundred years ago, as well, naturally "

Except of course, on planet Wishart.

Ian Wishart

Sigh. Reduced to splitting hairs are we? Last refuge of those on the losing end of a debate.

The context is whether modern ice changes are unprecedented in modern times, as you Chicken Littles at HT continually rave about in your little echo chamber.

No, they are not.

Ian Wishart

I see Christie has run screaming to mummy...classic.

Meanwhile, on doing more checking re the ice free space at 81 North, I see someone else has looked at this on Watts a couple of years ago:

Raven says:
March 17, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I did some poking around with google earth. The reference point 81.5 deg north is slightly north of Svalbard (the island to the east of greenland and to the north of iceland). According to illinois cryrosphere that latitude had ice in every August I checked from 1979 to 2007.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=16&fy=1979&sm=08&sd=16&sy=2007

In other words this report suggests that there was less ice that part of the arctic in august 1922 than there was during the ‘record setting’ melt of 2007.

Geoff

To continue the game of "wiff-waff" ( as Boris Johnson described Ping Pong) I see that Gareth has quoted this resource:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

via his comment here:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/ah-i-see-you-have-the-wishart-that-goes-ping/#IDComment72636292


What I find slightly puzzling is how NOAA can make these sweeping statements about our climate vs how it was in previous decades.

e.g this statement

"The annual mean Arctic temperature for the year 2008 was the fourth warmest year for land areas since 1990"

What does (a) this statement mean? and (b) where do they get the data to support this assertion?

Are there thermometers with accurate data for the last 100 years?

Where are these thermometers located?

Now there are those amongst us who, somehow, clung onto the open minded view that the AGW hypothesis might actually have some merit.

i.e we are not "deniers" as the charming and charismatic followers of blogs such as HT and OpenParachute would imagine us.


However, the more the lies are exposed, the more that the general population - those who have not outsourced their critical faculties to the IPCC, wake up to realise that there is very little of this so-called science that can be trusted.

As a Post Script, I suggest one reads the latest little tale from Steve McIntyre,

http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/ar4-on-1998-was-the-warmest-year/

It doesn't exactly inspire you to believe the science.

Unless, of course, you wish to remain in denial.


Geoff

Hang on a minute, the link above says

The annual mean Arctic temperature for the year 2008 was the fourth warmest year for land areas since 1990 (Figure A1).

But Fig A1 runs from 1900 not 1990

Is this a typo, or am I confused?

If we are looking at data over the last 10 year period, then this is of no relevance.

I might as well get my house revalued every day and start worrying about my potential gains and losses.

Geoff

But of course 1990 - 2010 is a TWENTY year period, not 10.

I just had to fix that before any tedious socialists corrected me

Situations Vacant

http://www.games.seek.co.nz/trufflehunter/?tracking=jobs:nz:sm:sem:google_nz_content:ggl_site:lb:truffle&gclid=CMDO4eOAnaICFUcwpAoddg7OvQ

Andy

Stoat bites again

“Climate scientists have set 350ppm and a 2C average temperature rise (from 1750 to 2100) as the upper range targets to prevent a global climate disaster.”

This is nonsense. Why are you quoting it?

http://hot-topic.co.nz/bjorn-again-lomborgs-convenient-change-of-heart/#comment-17364

The comments to this entry are closed.