Subscribe: Comments on: Nansen Corrects Sea Ice Data – Sea Ice Extent Now Greater, Near Normal for Most of April/May
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
apocalypse  article  data  day  earth day  earth  extent  ice extent  ice  joy  org  standard  time  warming  world  wrote  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Nansen Corrects Sea Ice Data – Sea Ice Extent Now Greater, Near Normal for Most of April/May

Comments on: Nansen Corrects Sea Ice Data – Sea Ice Extent Now Greater, Near Normal for Most of April/May

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Last Build Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:39:36 +0000


By: Jim Greig

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:59:20 +0000

Anthony, Do you see anything fishy in the arctic sea ice extent graphic? After sea ice extent was near "normal" they went off line for a while, and when they came back up their graphic shows a precipitous decline, dipping below the 2007 line. This is especially odd when you consider the Nansen sea ice extent revision. WUWT? Keep up the good work, Jim

By: player

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:33:08 +0000

dennis ward (22:48:36) Why does this "burst the [snip] bubble"? The real question is if the 2009 minimum is greater than the 2007/2008 minima or not. That question cannot be answered for several months. If 2009 has more ice at the minimum, that would be evidence for the melting trend reversing, given that 2008 was greater that 2007. Too early to tell, but so far no indication that its going to be worse than 2007. I am curious though, if the NSIDC data still reflects the faulty sensor. The drop for NSIDC appears more dramatic that that from other sources. Steve Goddard - any insight? Cheers, K.

By: Phil.

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:25:37 +0000

Dr A Burns (16:34:47) : Where else other than in publications attempting to cause alarm, could a one standard deviation band be considered “normal” ? 2 or 3 standard deviations is far more realistic Not for a sample size of 28.

By: dennis ward

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:48:36 +0000

Sorry to burst the [snip] bubble but the sea ice extent is descending from the 30 year norm yet again. How long will it be before we hear choruses of these measurements being described as inaccurate?

By: Dr A Burns

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:34:47 +0000

Where else other than in publications attempting to cause alarm, could a one standard deviation band be considered "normal" ? 2 or 3 standard deviations is far more realistic ... but that would defeat the purpose.

By: Steven Hill

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:42:22 +0000

I did not read through all of this but I seem to recall some global warming fan on another topic showing the old chart and making statements of all the ice melting. Seems like they were point fingers at someone and yelling I told ya so. Better get out the pickles for the crow sandwich, there is no AGW. I wish we could gather up all the people that want total Federal Gov. control of their lives and give them their own nation. Maybe we need to split the USA up? I bet the Government controlled one would like North Korea in 10 years and the non Government controlled one to look like South Korea. Wake up America!

By: Oldjim

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:50:29 +0000

As usual Roger Pielke Sr is worth a read in relation to forecast ice area

By: TonyB

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:49:00 +0000

Joy 147 I think you have the wrong web site. Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm are the extremely gullible ones. I suggest you repost this on Real Climate and Climate Progress. Tip: You'll just need to mention AGW somewhere then they will be all ears. Tonyb

By: Neven

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:29:00 +0000

Finally, the long awaited recognition from Nigeria. ;-) For laughs:

By: joy147

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:34:40 +0000

Hello beloved one Greeting in the name of our lord Jesus Christ, i am mrs Joy David from france, a widow to late mr lazurus David now a new christian convert suffering from long time cancer of breast, from all indication my condition is really deteriorating and it's quite obvious that i won't live more than two months according to my doctor because the stage of this cancer is very bad and during the period of our marriage we couldn't produce any child My late husband was a very wealthy and after his death i inherited all his business and wealth, due to my situation now i decided to give some part of my wealth to contribute to the development of churches in Africa, America, Asia and Europe and i selected you after visiting this website and gone through your profile i prayed over it, I am donating the sum seventeen million five hundred thousand dollars($17,500.000.000.00 usd) to the less privilleged Please get back to me on my mail address for more detaills Thanks and remain bless Wait for your urgent reply Your sister in Christ Mrs Joy David

By: norah4you

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:58:55 +0000

Not much forcast.... the best way to know about the future, as Winston Churchill among other noted, is to know a lot about the past. Since computermodels of this Earth forecasters aren't up to the standard one would expect to find, given that some of those who tries to make believe they know so much about the present situation. But one thing they don't know about is the past. Ice cores examples, used to present the situation of the past, never ever can present situation from one longitude and latitude 10 years before an observationpoint was established. Let alone from 1000 years ago. But let's look at facts from Fritiof Nansen's Polarexpedition in 1888 as shown on a map at urlFram's icedrift, Norsk Polarhistorie As seen the '_ _ _' is the route the ship took when sailing and the unbroken line the route the icedrift made the ship travel. THIS type of facts are real. Ice drift is a wellknown fact among scholars of geology, oceanography, hydrology and so on, given they learnt what the teachers at high school and university taught... if they didn't they missed their arguments for their CO2 case.

By: Jason S.

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:24:02 +0000

Forecasts up there are looking warmer than the S.F. Bay Area (almost 80 in Middle Tanana Valley). It's freezing cold where I'm at... unseasonably cold. It's 10 - 20 degrees warmer up there... they can have some of this down here.

By: Toto

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:15:59 +0000

maz2 (06:51:32) : Brace yourselves for apocalypse now from that article: The idea of End Times, or apocalypses, has been around as long as religion. Until recently, it has been a mainstay of Christian fundamentalism. But the notion that the world as we know it is about to end - this time with an environmental rather than a religious-inspired bang - lately has been making inroads in more mainstream and progressive-leaning circles, including activists, scientists and pundits. Another reason to be skeptical is that the previous round of such worries turned out to be overblown. Around 1970, two influential books fostered popular pessimism, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth and Paul Erhlich's The Population Bomb (which predicted millions would die by famines in the 1970s and 1980s). Neither came to pass. Exactly! Or "right on!"" in 70's speak. Apocalypse Now is really Apocalypse Again, and with many of the same prophets. I think the first Earth Day in 1970 is about the beginning of the mainstream environmental movement which is characterized by the slogan "We have met the enemy and he is us", made famous by a Pogo cartoon at that time: By now we have had several generations who have grown up with that point of view. It's no wonder that almost everyone, from the general public to the MSM to scientists assume that this is true. The environmentalist have done good things for the environment but now they care more about saving the world than saving the environment. Save the whales has become save the polar bears. For fun, look at the prophesies of apocalypse from 1970, courtesy of Wikipedia. (look now before the revisionists get to it): Concerns at the time of Earth Day 1970 In 2000, Ron Bailey, the scientific editor of Reason Magazine, wrote an article considering predictions and warnings made at the time of the inaugural Earth Day and progress that had been made since then, suggesting that much of the alarmism of the environmental movement was unfounded. In particular, he mentioned these quotes:[13] Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, "... by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. Life Magazine wrote, "... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, "The world has been chilling sharply for about twent[...]

By: Mike Odin

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:09:44 +0000

Speaking of Greenland- Greenlanmders say that their sea ice greatest in fifteen years-- but after all, how could they know anything about Greenland?-

By: the_Butcher

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:17:34 +0000

Is it me or are the nights here in Europe becoming too cold?

By: Pamela Gray

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:51:33 +0000

The jet stream is blowing ice out of the circle and into warmer waters. The winds are not overly strong or unusual as they were in 2007. But still, it results in fast melt. But melt that occurs elsewhere. The Arctic is not warming. The ice is moving to warmer waters. No need to be alarmed.

By: Mike Bryant

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:31:59 +0000

OT... Why can't we get the updated sea level numbers and glacier numbers? I have a funny feeling that they aren't following the models.

By: matt v.

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:41:54 +0000

Peter Plail Back in 2003 Europe experienced a heat wave which was wrongly blamed on manmade green house gases. Modern science has shown that natural planetary cycles like the Atlantic ocean surface temperature oscillations [as measured by AMO] was the likely and major cause. The AMO in 2003 reached a monthly peak level of 0.504 , the fourth warmest ever, and the 6th warmest ever on an average annual basis. Today the UK AGW scientists are again claiming that Great Britain will have another 70 year heat wave yet seem to again ignore ocean cycles which on average cause 2 warm but also 2 cool cycles per century rather than just worst case warming as this study suggests. It is like in economics, projecting 100 years of unprecedented boom years and ignoring all recessions which occur every 10 years. Their 2080 forecast is a meaningless worst case scenario. The sun is going into low activity and solar heating will be diminished as well for the next several solar cycles. Here is what the scientists who studied the 2003 European heat wave concluded; Overall, our results provide strong evidence that during the 20th century the AMO had an important role in modulating boreal summer climate on multidecadal time scales. We have focused here on time mean anomalies, but some of the most important impacts are likely to be associated with changes in the frequency of extreme events. There is evidence that the frequency of U.S. droughts (4) and the frequency of European heat waves (23) are both sensitive to Atlantic SSTs.

By: doug

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:18:08 +0000

Anthony--- Here's a nice article by a fellow meteorologist, asking for proper science in the debate. He wrote it for an alumni magazine for a rather liberal college and wrote me when I complemented him: "Actually, I have not been crucified at all. Rather lots of the comments are similar to yours. It’s been great to have this kind of support! Thanks. Dave" (sorry to be off topic, but Anthony requested OT items to be placed in comments rather than personal emails)

By: Steven Kopits

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:07:33 +0000

The std deviation bands around the NANSEN data seem very tight to me. You have three years in a row running at what seems to be 2-3 stnd dev's from the mean? Intuitively, that seems odd. And then in 2009: On May 22, the data is normal and by June 7, it's 1.5 stnd deviations from the mean? There's that much short term intra-seasonal volatility and those stnd dev bands are right?