Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Trakar]

What happened to 2009 thru 2011?

The article in question was written in mid-July 2009 there was no late summer 2009 (yet alone 2010 or 2011) data to write about yet.

 

[Trakar]

...Indeed. Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.

Then you need to get her to spell it for you because the above is nonsensical.

 

[westwall]

The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?

One data set that has over 2000 citations in published work. Every paper that cites that data set is untrustworthy.

Which clearly demonstrates the level of ignorance regarding scientific citation and practice that you bring to the table. Scientific citation often includes works that represent contradictory information or even information that has been found flawed or otherwise incomplete. Anytime a research is mentioned or alluded to, whether it is supportive, or contradictory, it is supposed to be cited and referenced in any published study. In the case of the ERA-40 data the bias was detected, acknowledge and accounted for in the study that originally produced the data. Why would this cause you to believe that this invalidates that original study or data? Moreover, how would the citation of this study or data invalidate any other study that lists a citation to that study or data?

Ohhh, I think not.

This is the level to which the AGW cult has fallen in their "studies". Plus you can add all of the cites that have been made to papers that have been proven false (but are still being cited by the faithful!) and you have a small idea of how crappy AGW science is. Nice try but as usual if won't fly.

Citizen Audit Anniversary

April 17, 2011



A year ago, I released the results of a citizen audit of all 18,531 references in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report. That project was made possible by the volunteer labour of more than 40 individuals from 12 countries. Over a period of five weeks we examined the references that appear at the end of each of the 44 chapters of the 3,000-page report informally known as the climate bible.

Each list of references was evaluated by three auditors working independently. We sorted these references into two groups – articles published in peer-reviewed journals and all others. Then we calculated the percentage of references that did, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed. (When auditors’ findings differed slightly, we used the number most favourable to the IPCC.)

This was a fact-checking mission. For years, IPCC officials – as well as the news media – have said we should trust the IPCC because it bases its conclusions solely on research that has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Numerous examples of this claim appear here. Instances in which IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri personally said so are here.

Pachauri once told a newspaper that research that has not been peer-reviewed belongs in the dustbin (see the end of this article). He further told a committee of the North Carolina legislature:


…everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.

Our audit determined that this claim is spectacularly mistaken. By our count, 30% – or 5,587 – of all the references in the climate bible cite sources that were not, in fact, peer-reviewed. In 21 separate chapters, the percentage of peer-reviewed references was so low the IPCC would have received an F on an elementary school report card. (Thus the F21 on the coffee mug above.)

Our findings raise an obvious question: If the IPCC can’t be trusted to describe its own report accurately, why should we believe anything else it says?

Another group of questions is equally disturbing. Thousands of individuals participate in the IPCC process. All of those people were therefore in a position to know that the 100% peer-reviewed claim was false. Where are the open letters, signed by hundreds of scientists, setting the record straight? Why did none of these people feel the need to shout from the rooftops that the public was being misled? What does this tell us about the internal culture of the IPCC? If IPCC participants were prepared to overlook this moral lapse, what else were they prepared to overlook?

It seems to me we hear the ’100% peer-reviewed claim’ less often these days. If that is the case, it means that a group of concerned citizens has struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. It means our efforts are helping to keep the IPCC honest.

When our findings were released last year, I included two graphics in the report. One was from the IPCC:



The other was designed by moi:



To commemorate the anniversary of the Citizen Audit I’ve arranged for souvenir coffee mugs, mouse pads, and fridge magnets bearing this second graphic. They can be ordered from the following:
•USA store (also recommended for countries not appearing on this list)
•UK store
•Australia store
•Canada store

A portion of the sale price of these items will help fund this blog. I set an identical price in the case of the US, UK, and Australia. CafePress (a third-party supplier of custom merchandise) translates that into local currencies.

My apologies to my fellow Canadians. Even though I halved the blog-supporting portion, shipping costs are so steep in our case the total is still slightly higher than in other jurisdictions. The good news is that GST, PST, and HST are included in the prices you see.



UN IPCC Citizen Audit Anniversary: 'By our count, 30% –or 5,587 –of all references in IPCC climate bible cite sources that were not, in fact, peer-reviewed' | Climate Depot

 

[westwall]

...Indeed. Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.

Then you need to get her to spell it for you because the above is nonsensical.

Yeahhh, well one thing you'll find is geologists in general are poor spellers plus the fact that my old fingers don't work like they used to (smashed them with a single jack too many times!), but we live with it!

Posturer is the proper spelling, happy now

 

[Trakar]

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post 88+ years ago_

I understand that this post is repeated in full from e-mail spam, so I probably shouldn't be attributing these as your own words, but 1922, wasn't that the year of the Knickerbocker Storm? (the storm was named after the famous theater in New York whose roof collapsed in the middle of a play from the 28inches of wet snow the storm dumped in very short order, killing almost a hundred patrons including a US congressman)..., regardless, was there a point you are trying to get to? with this article?

We have instrumental records that cover back to the mid-late 1800s (longer for some localities), regardless of minor and generally outlier weather anomalies and short-range trends, we can look at the instrumental record and see that the global average temperature over the last century or so and see that the 1920s weren't particularly warm.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201107.gif

Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas

NASA GISS: Research News: Despite Subtle Differences, Global Temperature Records in Close Agreement

...NASA's announcement this year — that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record — made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?

Not all that much, emphasizes James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. In the GISS analysis, for example, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 0.01°C (0.018°F), a difference so small that the temperatures of these two years are indistinguishable, given the uncertainty of the calculation.

Meanwhile, the third warmest year — 2009 — is so close to 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, with the maximum difference between the years being a mere 0.03°C, that all six years are virtually tied.

Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. "Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends,"...

 

[Trakar]

The area of the Arctic Ice is the fourth lowest already, and there is significant amounts of thick ice going south along the East coast of Greenland.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Cryosphere Today - Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere Animation

This was not supposed to be a year in which the Arctic showed very rapid warming. In fact, there should have been a return to more ice area, and a thickening as well. What we see is the continuation of the smaller ice area from 2007, and a very slight increase in volume, still way below the slope of the curve;


http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?

Looks like cascading failure factors engaging in relative slow motion.

 

[Trakar]

I see there is still more ice then there was in 2007. How is that possible in this ever warming world?

"More"? Really? are you applying the density scale in your assessment? Those colors aren't there to make it look cool. Unless you are counting "slush" as sea ice (aka virtually anything that isn't pink or purple on those depictions (anything much less than 70% ice)). It looks to me like there has been a substantial degradation of the northern sea-ice cap over the last 4 years. Vast reductions in the volume of 90-100% ice (dark purple) with it being mostly replaced by the thinner annual and decay ices of 70-90% ice (pinkish) it is the Red slush 50-70% ice and yellow and green slurry 30-50% ice seas that look to make up most of the differences you seem to be seeing in over all extent. Looking at the mass concentrations and compositions from the graph you supplied, it is casually easy to see the loss of substantial mass over the last 4 years.

 

[Trakar]

I told you to follow the money, sorry the comprehension level is low on your end. Seems quite obvious to most, Trakar. Yes that is pitiful, tsk, tsk

Oh, I've followed the money quite well, but it seems to lead in a direction different than you advocate:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study - Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

BUSH AIDE EDITED CLIMATE REPORTS - NYTimes.com
and it follow-on companion piece
Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil - New York Times

While Washington Slept | Politics | Vanity Fair

Bray, D. & von Storch, H. CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change, GKSS Report (2010).

-- No Title -- (wjh13f00)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0]Answering Climate Change Skeptics, Naomi Oreskes - YouTube[/ame]

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/2007-08-13_newsweek_global_warming_denyers.pdf

Requiem for a species: why we resist the truth about climate change
Requiem for a species: why we resist ... - Google Books

Well here is a list of a FEW of the payments that Phil Jones recieved from the US DOE for "research". This is from one US agency to one guy. Kinda pales in comparison to the offer of 10,000 plus expenses listed in the first article.



From Verity Jones in comments:


From an Excel file released with the emails in November. US DOE Funding only:

Funding Source, Investigators, Grant Title, Funding, Start Date, End Date

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of CO2 induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £540,956, original start date 01/12/90 £128,000 01/03/1995 29/02/1996

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £672,956, original start date 01/12/90 £132,000 01/03/1996 28/02/1997

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £797,956, original start date 01/12/90 £125,000 01/03/1997 28/02/1998

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £99,555 01/05/1998 30/04/1999

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change (Suppl.) £102,752 01/05/1999 30/04/2000

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £106,151 01/05/2000 30/04/2001

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data and analysis from the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £212,500 01/05/2001 30/04/2003

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate Data and Analysis – Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change. – Supp awarded £88,756 – 30.3.06 £262,629 01/05/2004 30/05/2006

I may have missed it, can you point out how much of these monies are the equivilant of the $10,000 on top of the "expenses" of the research Dr. Jones performed? As far as I can tell he never stole, nor has even been suspected of having personally misappropriated or or misused research monies. If you feel that you have evidence compellingly supportive a such a assertion I would certainly be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I'm not seeing the connection between the two very different situations of a research scientists receiving funding for unbiased investigations the government puts up for bid, and a private company offering researchers funding plus a morality compromised bonus to conduct research that produces results that can be used to contradict or successfully challenge science that they find inconvenient to their profit making future.

 

[Trakar]

Ohhh, I think not.

obviously.

 

[gslack]

...Indeed. Factual Posterer is my wifes term for them.

Then you need to get her to spell it for you because the above is nonsensical.

Oh really?

You made a claim about the words "proof, prove, disproof, and disprove" in much the same manner on this forum recently with another poster... Care to enlighten us all as to how we are misusing the terms again?

Proof = noun, "I want proof of that."

Prove = Verb, "Can you prove that."

Disproof = noun, "He bears the burden of disproof."

Disprove = verb, "I will attempt to disprove that."

You claimed that may be how we use words here but you used the terms just how you wanted to. You responded to my post claiming you weren't trying to "disproof" my claims and you were not "disproofing" anything.

Another poster pointed out that it was "prove, disprove, and disproving in that case and you claimed you were in fact correct and we the obvious idiots...

One more time tool lets see you grow a pair and stand by your claim this time. Last time all you did was run and hide... DO not correct other people until you can separate noun from verb moron..

 

[percysunshine]

Polar bears eat baby seals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looked at the data today. Appears that 2011 is now the second lowest area recorded.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

And the slope, if continued, will take it below 2007 pretty rapidly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

08,27,2011, 4,980,938


mins
2002 5,646,875
2003 6,032,031
2004 5,784,688
2005 5,315,156
2006 5,781,719
2007 4,254,531*(first)
2008 4,707,813*(Second)
2009 5,249,844
2010 4,813,594*(third)

Less then 90 thousand away from 2010 for third, but 2 to 3 days work. Second will be a little harder, but not impossible at all.

 

[Chris]

 

[Old Rocks]

Better than a submarine!

British explorers row 450 miles to North Pole in world first voyage - Telegraph

 

[Trakar]

http://www.climatedepot.com/r/10606...te-sources-that-were-not-in-fact-peerreviewed

LOL, I told you before I don't do blogs or activist fringe political groups and their conspiracy manifestos. If you can point to legitimate science there's a discussion to be had. If you want to make an economic or social point there are plenty of discussions to be had there as well, but I'm really not into the black helicopter, pilots/engineers for 9/11 truth, alien abduction conspiracy BS.

 

[gslack]

http://www.climatedepot.com/r/10606...te-sources-that-were-not-in-fact-peerreviewed

LOL, I told you before I don't do blogs or activist fringe political groups and their conspiracy manifestos. If you can point to legitimate science there's a discussion to be had. If you want to make an economic or social point there are plenty of discussions to be had there as well, but I'm really not into the black helicopter, pilots/engineers for 9/11 truth, alien abduction conspiracy BS.

YOU don't do much of anything... Including thinking...

 

[Old Rocks]

Now G-string, you transparent closet liberal, who are you to accuse anyone of posting without thinking? I have yet to see a post of yours that demonstrates the least amount of thought.

 

[gslack]

Now G-string, you transparent closet liberal, who are you to accuse anyone of posting without thinking? I have yet to see a post of yours that demonstrates the least amount of thought.

Oh I don't know socks, I thought about whether or not to poke you with a stick. I decided best to do it so you don't think I forgot about you... I know you get upset when I don't pay attention to you.

 

[Chris]