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?
Thanks everyone – the video is actually Anthony’s contribution
Last year (2008) the ice was at the greatest extent since 2000 for a full 2 weeks. I hope the same doesn’t happen with our 2009 ice.
Speaking of ice, why does the AMSR-E Ice Extent chart show virtually every year ice extent taking a jump up (increase) at the beginning of June?
Nasif Nahle (19:30:32) :
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.
———————————-
Let those clowns have at it with their silly and fraudulent counterarguments.
The unwashed, voting masses may not understand the scientific process, but they sure as hell know how to differentiate between people who are lying to them and those who are not. In this modern world, that would be a skill set that is honed, by necessity, on an hourly basis.
Their multi-year Arctic ice argument is particularly puzzling to me. As I see it, the only argument is that first year ice melts more rapidly than 2-, 3-, multi-year ice. So what ?? How does that impact anything other than sea ice extent ?? So it seems to me that (increasing) sea ice extent should continue to be the “valid” parameter that it was when it was declining and the darling of the AGW movement. Am I missing something ??
Another thing: If warming oceans cause the volume of the oceans to rise and, consequently sea levels to rise, I’m assuming that the same laws of nature would hold for the opposite too. Since the oceans have cooled and piles of new snow and ice are now on terra firma, sea levels, not trends in sea level rises, but actual absolute sea levels should be falling. Other than the obvious five letter “f” word, am I missing something ??
In stagnating companies, boards frequently make a change at the top, because a change is needed. What this field needs is a change at the top, and hiring of scientists who perform experiments in real time, and analyze past data, as opposed to this set of clowns who have convinced the people in charge of their taxpayer-payed funding that in CO2-climate research, all experiments have to be conducted in the future. The passage of time and recent data now shows this approach to be bogus ….
…. something we, on here, already knew.
Hansen’s new model!
10 INPUT “CURRENT DATA “;D
20 INPUT “CURRENT DATE “;DATE$
30 PRINT “ASIMO PREDICTS DATA WILL BE “;D; “BY THE DATE “;DATE$
RUN!!!
Regarding the video. Water changing state to Ice expands by 9%. Water does not expand when cooling, only when changing state to ice. So, how come the bottle doesn’t distort or the cap pop off due to the expected 9% expansion if the super-cooled water is actually turning to ice.
BarryW (19:08:42) :
Are you referring to the 2008 ice area? If so, it fell off the cliff about 10 days (and one one year ago). 2007 had a very steady melt rate during that period. It appears to me from that limited data that expecting this year to behave like last year is foolish.
However, the ice extent map at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png shows a recent sharp drop. Personally, I think we’re paying too much attention to the graphs now, things really start sorting themselves out in July and August. Patience.
If not all the baby ice melts this year (it didn’t last year) will it be over some year in the future where all the baby ice does melt?
Mike Strong (20:14:50) :
OT, but not so much. It involves the Arctic ice. I sent a note to ABC World News Tonight protesting their BIG Earth Day story with not less than 3 prime reporters showing a sad “stranded” polar bear, the clouds of gas from factories, the coral reefs bleaching, the frogs disappearing and the sad and starving people of Earth with no water (drinking dirt). I was disappointed Charles Gibson didn’t limit the topic or show anything about the opposing view with doubt of AGW/HGW. The NOAA lady really tweaked me. She got her 30 seconds of fame to tell me the human race will perish.
So, on this Earthday…with Arctic Ice is nearly hitting the 1979-2000 “holy gail” mean…and with global ice above that same average. I hope Charles Osgood, the Catlin grandstanders, Hansen, Gore and the IPCC go out with the tar and feathers they deserve. ABC News: Bad reporting”.
Mike Strong,
We all have to grow up and learn.
The real consensus can be found among a the “powerful and mighty” on this planet who have decided to create a Global Empire. The vehicle they use is called Fascism, or Corporatism see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The AGW scare comes from them.
And they control our Media.
You think you address an independent journalist or worse, an independent editor?
In the real world you address a slave of “Corporatism” who will lose his or hers job if the guidelines are not fulfilled.
We have had a short window of “objective news presentation” until the Press Agencies lost their independence and were bought by the Publishers and the Publishers were bought by the Media Thai Coons and and big Corporates,
Ted Turner (CNN), General Electric (CNBC), Walt Disney (ABC), Reuters (Thomson) etc.
Ted Turner is one of the most open supporters of the New Global Empire and he certainly puts his money where his mouth is.
He has donated millions to the United Nations and he is quoted at http://green-agenda.com
I think it’s better to publish or link the articles and debunk them on the net.
I think we are all doing all right here.
Jim Papsdorf (19:36:57) : “Air pollution helps plants blunt climate change: study:
These folks are nuts. Some quotes from the article with comments:
“Although many people believe that well-watered plants grow best on a bright sunny day, the reverse is true. Plants often thrive in hazy conditions,” said colleague and co-author Stephen Sitch.
It depends entirely on the plant! Corn wants direct hot August sun. Kale is happy with weak winter sun, cool and frost. Fava beans grow in the winter here. Sheesh. There absolutely is no one size fits all answer and anyone with a clue about plants knows this.
This process of diffuse radiation is well known. But the new study is the first to use a global model to calculate its impact on the ability of plants to absorb CO2.
Yikes! The disease is spreading! Now even botanists have learned that writing video games makes more grant money…
The findings underline a cruel dilemma: to the extent we succeed in reducing aerosol pollution in coming decades, we will need to slash global carbon dioxide emissions even more than we would have otherwise.
They must know that CO2 enrichment promotes plant growth. So the answer to lower plant growth is reduced CO2? This is flat out pandering.
Without this particle pollution, he said, average global surface temperatures would have increased by 1.0 to 1.1 Celsius (1.8 to 2.0 Fahrenheit) since the start of industrialisation, rather than 0.7 C (1.25 F).
Well, at least I can drive comforted by the knowledge that my smokey old 1980’s era Diesel is helping to save the world from Global Warming 😉
A major scientific review released last week at the United Nations showed that warming is itself limiting the capacity of plants to take up CO2, and that an increase in two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) would transform forests from a sink into a net source of CO2.
This, too, is nuts. Have they never noticed where all the vegetables come from? HOT places, like Imperial Valley California and Arizona. 2 C isn’t enough to even notice in a field unless it’s the difference between frost kill and not frosted. The rice and peaches really grow well in summer in California when it’s 100+F (and the standard unit to measure ripening is “degree days” meaning more degrees grows and ripens faster).
I’m simply astounded at the brazen falsity (nicest word I could come up with fearing a “snip” for what I really think…)
Don’t know if anybody has seen this regarding historic Greenland ice levels. Might be interesting to see where the climate information cited here came from and how it can be checked
http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html
Mike Bryant (18:32:32) :
“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”.
Mike, this is war, nothing more nothing less.
A war to establish a Global Empire.
Let’s take each of these reports and tear them apart.
Pamela Gray (18:04:39) : “So, does that explain the solid 7 days of snow coming to the Wallowa Mountains?”
The scientific community has known for some time that the Wallowa Mountains are teleconnected to the West Antarctic Peninsula, as well as to Al Gore’s swollen dumpadeedus, home of the discovery of the Internet. It’s a robust correlation, confirmed by the average model trendlines, and the forthcoming paper will be pee-er reviewed tonight as soon as we finish the pizza.
Graeme Rodaughan (19:05:04) :
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.
I will say AMEN to this, a clear confusion of the issue of the scientific method.
I want to speak up though for the use of models and the continuous feedback with data. It is practically biological, though not science. Every living thing models its environment, tests it and progresses a molecule 🙂 at a time. It is a more than time honored method for evolution. Modeling has been a useful tool in scientific disciplines, from engineering to particle physics, but it is just that, a tool, and tools have to be used appropriately.
Modeling is appropriate for weather prediction: a model fits existing patterns and projects ahead for a few days. Next day it incorporates the fresh patterns and projects ahead, like the biological evolutionary models. It is very useful, but it does not try to prove anything. The correct predictions show the extent to which the approximations used in the model are good enough.
In contrast to the evolutionary modeling, the scientific method poses a hypothesis, tests it, and rejects the hypothesis if in error with data. The scientific method is predictive, not exploratory. The tools are kept( we do not throw away integration 🙂 )
The logical fallacy that the AGW have fallen into is that they confuse the tool with the hypothesis and by jiggling the tool when it does not fit, think they prove the original hypothesis. This is also very influenced by human psychology, in addition to grant money and peer reviews, where scientists want their own pet theory vindicated. History of science is full of examples of scientists sticking to their guns while drowning in opposite proof.
Leon Brozyna (20:37:28) : “…Interesting methodology in play here. Public figures engage in spin; accountants cook the books. What are scientists doing who try to make the data fit the fantasy?”
Prostitution comes to mind.
Many of them actually realize that they’re shooting at a rapidly moving target – and that their arguments are therefore fabricated at every single moment (locally), and therefore also at all moments (globally).
But they don’t care. Their idea is that “isn’t it a good thing what we’re doing even if all the justifications are untrue?” They’re driven by pure politics and science is just held hostage.
Qubert: That’s impossible! Nothing can go faster than the speed of light!
Professor: That’s why scientists increased it in 2208.
This science thing is pretty easy when you manipulate it to fit your needs.
I’m surprised that no one has suggested using tug boats to move some of that extra ice in Antarctica up to the North Pole where it can be used as Polar Bear habitat.
All of this science through computer modeling makes me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The knights are all set to converge on Camelot, but someone mentions that “it’s only a model.” Then someone quickly gives the universal hush sound, “shhh!” There is an awful hush out there in the over computer models substituting for reality in science. It’s almost as if computers are not to be questioned.
Meanwhile, on Greenland: “Man Survives 3 Days Lost in the Arctic”
When reading it, consider the following: How much infrastructure is the NSF supporting in Greenland?
Steven Goddard wrote
“Arctic ice area has recovered to normal (one standard deviation) levels, so ice area no longer matters. The issue is now thickness”
Which is what the scientists have been saying ever since that silly Daily Tech, Geroge Wills mess claimed it did! Glad you now agree with them Steve.
Regards
Andy
This is Super Mario Brothers science.
You twiddle the dials on the computer to make Mario jump at just the right places.
It works great so long as you see where to jump.
As soon as you don’t see the jumps, you lose.
That’s all the AGW crowd is doing. Twiddling the knobs on the free parameters to make it look as though the models predicted the future when all they did is replicate the equivalent of Super Mario’s jumps.
The point is, the models break down as soon as they are called on to predict where the jumps will occur in the future.
It is surprising that people don’t understand that.
Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave. This is not science because it is not falsifiable. It is a silly computer game.
It seems that they have gotten to the point where they are creating something equivalent to a legal fiction, a thing clearly false but accepted as true in law to achieve an equitable or worthy result.
In other words, they have reached the point of dressing up a scientific fiction that must be accepted as true, despite all evidence to the contrary, to achieve a desired political end.
In law a recognized and accepted fiction can be a benefit; in science it is a disgrace and growing disaster.
Unfortunately, their ultimate political end may result in a literal physical end for a fair portion of humanity, much as the ban on DDT did for Africans.
Justin Sane (21:08:12) :
Speaking of ice, why does the AMSR-E Ice Extent chart show virtually every year ice extent taking a jump up (increase) at the beginning of June?
Justin,
After speculating (wrongly) that it was an instrument sensor drift, I emailed JAXA and got this reply which I also posted on a previous topic (“leaving the icepack behind”)
Dear van Burgel,
Thank you for inquiring about our AMSR-E sea-ice monitor web.
You are right.
Current version of data processing makes an erroneous bias of
sea ice extent on June 1st and October 15th which are seen
in the graph of sea ice extent as a small peak on these dates.
The apparent bias arises due to a switching of some parameters
in the processing on both dates. The parameter switching is
needed because the surface of the Arctic sea-ice becomes
wet in summer due to the melting of ice which changes
satellite-observed signatures of sea-ice drastically.
We are planning to improve the processing to make the gap
much smoother in the coming year.
Sincerely,
Masahiro HORI
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
The latest paper on the Ozone Hole controlling the direction of polar air masses and the patterns of associated winds would certainly make Marcel Leroux laugh… As Lubos Motl points out, they are desperate and fire off anything to counter the growing public perception of a scam. One has to check the summary of April 2009 Geophysical letters to realize how anything that is global warming minded seems to be published these days and fast. As the Arctic sea ice is getting back to normal (and its higher albedo since new ice is clean of soot particules), the silence of the media is deafening…
There is a joke about genetics: “It can explain why your son looks like you and why he does not, if that’s the case”
Paraphrasing that we may say: “AGW can explain why the planet gets hotter and why it cools, if that’s the case”.
They make up the rules as they go, along with the data and the models.
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?
It’s global warming yesterday, and global warming tomorrow…but never global warming today.