Shooting At a Rapidly Moving Target
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Arctic ice area has recovered to normal (one standard deviation) levels, so ice area no longer matters. The issue is now thickness, which is measured by a team of explorers (Catlin) with a tape measure, who intentionally seek out flat (first year) ice for their route.
The team systematically seeks out flatter ice because it is easier to travel over and camp on. Typically, the surface of first‐year ice floes is flatter than that of multi‐year ice floes.
Arctic ice area back in the normal range
Antarctic ice extent has been setting record highs, so the AGW team now claims that Antarctica doesn’t matter.
the scientific community has known for some time that that on a warming planet, sea ice in the global North (Arctic) is expected to melt while sea ice in the global South is expected to remain constant or even sightly grow.
Buoy data which shows thickening doesn’t count, because buoys don’t cover a wide enough region. Even though their region is much larger than the Catlin coverage.
Thus, while the buoys provide an excellent measurement of thickness at a point through the seasons, they do not provide good information on the large-scale spatial distribution of ice thickness.
Two year old multi-year ice no longer counts, the ice now has to be three years old to matter.
The Arctic is treading on thinner ice than ever before. Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades, according to researchers with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.
Dr. Hansen’s original prediction that Antarctic ice would diminish symmetrically with Arctic ice no longer matters, because the models have improved since he made that prediction.
A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe. … numerical models have improved considerably over the last two decades”
Apparently the only valid target are the latest computer models, which are constantly backfitted to mask their failures to date. Is this how science is supposed to be done?
So, does that explain the solid 7 days of snow coming to the Wallowa Mountains?
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=PDT&llon=-117.978747&rlon=-116.368747&tlat=46.342084&blat=44.732084&smap=1&mp=0&map.x=109&map.y=184
Are we saying that increased warming also increases snow in the NH too?
Explain global warming again. I don’t get it.
Seems to be the way the weather is forecast as well! Whenever I read articles such as this, I picture a child standing with their fingers firmly stuck in their ears, crying “Na Na Na, I’m not listening!”
Resistance is futile!
Despite their own numbers proving them wrong, the Alarmists continue to practice their “religion”.
You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
For a consistent comparison, is there a graph like the 1 Standard Deviation one available for the antarctic? I know it is above average, but is it statistically significant?
Up is down, left is right, black is white, wrong is right. Poor is rich, dead is alive, brown is green, and cold is hot. They’ve gone stark raving mad, I tell you, and they look totally normal.
First it was global warming, until it got COOLER. Then it was global climate change, until the two poles started acting differently. So now is it anthropogenic hemispheric climate change? Or should we just call them bi-polar now? (No offense to those to whom the real and actual medical term applies.)
Sue Pam, my middle name is Sue. Too funny. I’m Pam Sue and you’re Sue Pam. The only time anyone ever used my middle name was when I was a little girl and in serious trouble. Then it was “PAMELA SUE!” Whereupon I would drop and break whatever I was holding and run like hell.
Another outstanding earmark of pseudoscience: whatever occurs supports the theory–it cannot be falsified. Facts that refute earlier iterations are ignored or said to have been predicted all along, just unseen–oops.
Maybe that’s how an Ice age happens. The AG$Wers think we are going to have runaway warming but maybe we are going to see runaway freezing just like in the video but on a global scale. Interesting.
The studies are coming so fast and furious that there is nothing, and I mean nothing, that can falsify the blitzkrieg of global warming. If glaciers were fast approaching the great lakes, you can rest assured that this is precisely what the models had already predicted, even as study after study would pour forth from our higher institutions of learning detailing exactly why this had already been predicted. The rewriting of history continues apace, helped along by a populace ignorant of history, the internet, a collusion of interests, a consensus of the ennabled and the apathy of the majority.
“Apparently the only valid target are the latest computer models, which are constantly backfitted to mask their failures to date. Is this how science is supposed to be done?”
No. This is decidedly NOT how science is supposed to be done. Tweaking models to fit current data, and then using those tweaked models to “predict” the current data is abhorent at best, and outrageously deceptive at worst. It seems that the “observables” that the GW alarmists called to our attention a few years ago are problematic:
i. Ice caps melting (well, that ain’t happening)
ii. Global temperatures rising out of control (nope)
iii. Water levels rising and swamping cities (hasn’t happened even to the ones we wouldn’t miss)
iv. Winter season shortening (I’m unsure as to this…might be worth re-calculating…but for what its worth, this past winter still seems to be hanging on)
Now that their observables are failing them, they are switching to non-observables or difficult-to-observe observables such as:
i. ice depth
ii. this idea that everything is “on pause” and that in a few years down the line, boy are we ever gonna get it!
This is certainly NOT good science. Those that are practicing it should be ashamed of themselves.
The lowest Arctic summer melt season in the satellite record back to 1972 was actually 1996 (even though many don’t know that – everyone thinks it was 1979 or earlier etc.)
The current trends that 2009 are on are very similar to 1996 in that there was a very low start-off melt at this time of the year in 1996 and the ocean influences in the north Atlantic were similar.
The 2009 Arctic season to date is actually about 300,000 km^2 higher than 1996 so if the same melt conditions continue as in 1996 and the ocean influences stay the same, we could be looking at an extraordinary year (in terms of the silencing the pro-AGW arctic-free-of-ice crowd).
Bill Illis,
You may not realize this, But there are already fourteen studies ready to be published explaining why that would be exactly what was expected. They will be released when the melt is much lower than expected.
Don’t worry the studies have already been paid for.
Mike
From what I read, the arctic is melting more and faster all the time. If it weren’t for too much ice, it would be ice free in 2009. Yes, that’s right, too much ice is there for it to be ice free, even though it’s melting more and more and faster and faster. Scratching head, hum, I think my 8 year old son can figure this one out. More ice is freezing than melting during the past 2 seasons, possibly?
There are no black spots on the sun today
It’s the same as yesterday
Correction,
I also meant to say really nice article Steven.
Surely everyone realizes that once the operative description was changed from “Man-made Global Warming” to “Man-made Climate Change”, ANY change will be attributable to man. I, for one, feel myself downright omnipotent now that I’ve realized my pitiful carbon footprint is amplified by mysterious (and unnatural) positive feedback to fry some poor schnook in Bangladesh. I fire off my weedwhacker and birds fall from the trees in Dipsylvania while heat-crazed polar bears (possibly bi-polar bears) attack a German women out for a swim in the park. According to recent scientific studies, fat people are even more powerful than I.
George Orwell was a genius.
Apparently the only valid target are the latest computer models, which are constantly backfitted to mask their failures to date. Is this how science is supposed to be done?
Which is the nut of the problem. A substitution of a flawed methodology (models constantly corrected post-hoc and then treated as data) for actual science – predictive theory tested against actual empirical evidence capable of independent replication.
This also goes to a post over at Jennifer Marohasys site where Bob Carter explains the reaction of local Australian Politicians to the rupture of explanations regarding AGW/Climate: REF: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-a-tortuous-political-problem/
The Politicians respond with (to quote Bob Carter).
“1. BEWILDERMENT about being faced by two implacably opposing views from two groups of scientists who, prima facie, seem equally professionally credible, yet are each certain that their view is the right and the other’s wrong.”
The reason that they are bewildered is because of their incapacity to assess the methods employed to reach the different (Pro/Anti) AGW positions. – Because they are not aware that there is a difference of methodology in play.
BTW: The AGW Proponent “Pseudo-Science” Methodology does not provide new useful knowlege, except by accident, and is explicitly designed to hide the flaws in the models and to ensure that the fundamental assumptions (i.e. man made emissions of CO2 causes catastrophic warming) are never tested.
Comon guys, look at how 2008 fell off a cliff about now. It’s not over till the baby ice melts.
No! No! No! They have it all wrong, The Telegraph in England is now reporting that the increase in Ice Mass in the Antarctic is caused by the Ozone Hole! Who would of thought that the previous man-made catastrophe ( loss of all of the Earth’s Ozone ) would someday save us from the horrors of Global Warming! Shoot, all we have to do to stave off the Climate Catastrophe is produce more fluorocarbons.
The increase in Antarctic ice doesn’t count because it’s due to the ozone hole according to the British Antarctic Survey report released today. The ozone hole caused wind patterns over Antartica to shift blowing ice away from the land, allowing more ice to form.
In other words, the increase is sea ice is due to man. But don’t worry, it’ll return to normal as the ozone hole heals over the next 2 to 3 decades.
Steven Goddard:
Not only does the Norwegian data show the ice is within 1 STD: it’s based on a 1979-2007 average. NOT a 1979-2000 average.
I’ve had it.
Arguing with the Alarmist is pointless.
As the guy wrote a few spaces up………up is down, white is black in the mind of the disciples of the global warming faithful……..ice flows could be covering New York City in July and they’d still attribute it to global warming…….insisting that “the models had predicted that very phenomenon all along” or “just you wait until next year”.
All the evidence you show them will not sway their religious adherence to the “global warming”, “mankind is evil”, “we’re all gonna die” mantra as they drive off to catch a mid-winter vacation flight to the Galapagos Islands in their chauffer driven limousines while munching on their tofu laced granola bars.
It’s a fad that will die a slow death just as disco dancing, hula hoops and pet rocks, (and hopefully the Prius). I just keep forwarding the information that Goddard/Anthony and the remaining sane people provide to keep them at bay.
Me the paranoid again beware of norex (and cryosphere), they did a massive change downwards last year when this began to happen. Cryosphere is not prepared to let you compare NH current ice with past NH ice either. The only one I trust at this stage is probably NCDC and DMI. BTW one wonders if it ain’t in fact way over anomaly since last year (norex) but they aint showin it LOL. This would be truly the end of AGW if it does happen hence the strong resistance to accepting this fact (NH ice “over” anomaly)
I like the gap (sarc) between what is accepted and what is not :
Arson fires and UHI heat records in Australia–accepted–climate
record cold temps broken throughout this past winter–not accepted–weather
Arctic ice in growing trend–not accepted–ice still in ‘death spiral’
record heat in California in UHI areas–accepted–Steven Chu was right, California beyond hope
—————–
I have the popcorn ready for watching Arctic 2009 melt–fun to watch it not surpass 2008!
P.S. very interesting video Steven Goddard
Anthony…
Apparently the only valid target are the latest computer models, which are constantly backfitted to mask their failures to date. Is this how science is supposed to be done?
Nope, it’s not. Science must be done honestly. These people conceal unprocessed databases, formulas, methodologies, etc. Moreover, their counterarguments make me know that we, open scientists, are struggling against an irrefutable hypothesis, which is adjusted every time it is falsified with data taken from real nature.