That’s very interesting. Just another nail in the wall. I mean brick in the coffin.
============================================

Georg Beck recovered manypublishe scienitfic reports documenting scientific laboratory measurements of CO2 throughout he 18th and19th centuries. These are Lab results done by diverse teams of scientists in various nations, over long periods and include efforts by 4 Noble prize winners. and total 90,000 or more measurements. The 19th century average CO2 reading was 335 ppm, not 280 ppm. Rhe data even reveasl peaks due to Volcanic eruptions, Tambora and Krakatoa at the beginning and end of the 19th century peaking at 444 ppm. Some 60 ppm higher than current CO2 readings.

The CO2 ice core measurements without proper adjustment for clathrate formation are a scientific scandal. As is the phony smooth Moana Loa marriage of ice core data and its current CO2 readings, that we have all seen numerous times. To make the smooth match early Moana Loa scientists matched data separated by 83 years, as though the data fit in time perfectly! The fix was in, in the 1950s when Moana Loa started recording CO2 levels.
Dr Callendar anealy AGW alrmist inthe1950s even trashed the19th century lab data in a paper questioning the scientific rigor,of one small team, and by inference discrediting all the other independent efforts. As though lab measurements are more imprecise than any assumed proxy for CO2.

year extent weekly change
2003 13.63094 -0.39922
2004 12.93062 -0.61563
2005 13.12719 -0.21984
2006 13.00281 -0.02219
2007 12.97031 -0.24187
2008 13.57734 -0.31781
2009 13.64922 -0.09859
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5614#comment-337310

REPLY: Hmmm Still not updated on the JAXA website I’ll wait. Anthony

I’ve noticed that on the IJIS website that there seems to be an adjustment during the day. If I look at it in the morning, there’s one number and a different in the evening. No suspicion here, just curiosity. Have you heard any rationale for the change?

Perhaps because they get two full sets of data every 24hrs.

All first year ice is not created equal, some 9 month ice, some 8 month ice, some 7…etc. The longer it’s present, the more time it has to thicken.

The NH anomalies graphed on CT show that in late ’08 the ice recovered from the minimum much more rapidly than in ’07. To such an extent that there is about 1.7 Mil Km^2 more that would fall in the 9 month catagory. Further, there was no “dip” to the area anomoly in Dec or Jan due to short term weather.

Thus, this year, the first year ice is likely older and thicker, on average, than the first year ice from the prior year. I think that indicates that the summer minimum will recover back toward ‘average’–somewhere between the ’05 and ’04 minimums.

In all events, these things will provide a lot of amusement.

The AGW Proponents must really hate Nature right now….

I can see them twisting the tips of their moustaches and going “Curses, Curses…”

Ron de Haan (09:37:00) :

Just had a look, I’m off to my printer.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

Well what can you say?

Brilliant!

A great debunk of the manic curse of AGW Catastrophism.

Pass it on too everyone you know.
———————–

Great stuff, and what I like about it most, is that it is written in a way that a jury WILL understand.

Who is going to be the first deep-pockets target of the many currently unemployed contingency attorneys ??

“OK in this case we have a long narrow bridge, ~200m thick, which cracks longitudinally and fractures into narrow blocks that topple into the ocean.
What would cause it to break that way?”

I’d call it stress fractures. But since you asked, what would you call it?

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm

…the same stock photo at the top of this article seems to get recycled from one year to the next.

These AGW reporters must all be in the same sewing circle.

OK in this case we have a long narrow bridge, ~200m thick, which cracks longitudinally and fractures into narrow blocks that topple into the ocean.
What would cause it to break that way?

Well what can you say?

Brilliant!

A great debunk of the manic curse of AGW Catastrophism.

Pass it on too everyone you know.

I’ve noticed that on the IJIS website that there seems to be an adjustment during the day. If I look at it in the morning, there’s one number and a different in the evening. No suspicion here, just curiosity. Have you heard any rationale for the change?

I’ve often wondered if the Firn Densification Model method of aging the air bubbles trapped in ice has ever been seriously looked at from an engineering perspective…Or if the pressure effects of burial on the partial pressure compositions of the air bubbles has ever been seriously looked at from an engineering perspective.

Yes there has, I found a study a while ago that talked about that. The effects of gas solubility in intercrystalline layers of supersaturated brine and acidic water that would not freeze even at very low temps. The fact the bubbles disappeared at depth and only reformed when the ice was decompressed as the core was drilled and allowed to rest at low pressure for a while.

I will look around and see if I can find it. I sent a link to Anthony over on his site survey email link a while back but my email got wiped out when my ISP moved to a new client so I no longer have the sent message copy.

Larry

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html