Barrow Update

By Steven Goddard,

A few days ago I did a post Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record? Since then, the Barrow webcam has started showing open water, which has confused some of our friends into believing that the ice has broken up at the NARL site – located five miles to the northeast at Point Barrow.

aerial photo of landfast ice

The map below shows the city of Barrow at A, and the NARL site at B.

The satellite image below shows what has happened. A five mile long chunk of ice (red circle) broke away from shore adjacent to the city of Barrow last week. The ice at Point Barrow (green circle) has not changed.

Current estimate from the University of Alaska is breakup on July 7.

Always happy to help out.

Advertisements

105 thoughts on “Barrow Update

  1. Wow! Do I see an implied correlation between Cloud Cover and Mean Shortwave Flux?
    Send this to Svensmark!

  2. your first Barrow post did start with this claim:
    “In my last post, we discussed how there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.”
    it was posted on the 26th of june. the ice radar did show, that a massive piece of ice broke away from the beach before Barrow on the 25th of June.
    there was no landfast ice visible any longer on the Barrow beach cam, on the day you did post your article. (your picture from the web cam missed that, because of the fog. )

  3. MODERATOR :
    Can you add this video to the article, with the text “Satellite view June 18 – July 3”
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SPXDsM3NlE]
    Thx

  4. Gee Phil,
    Sure do hope for mistakes, don’t we? Not as quick to correct yours, I’ve noticed. And you’re certainly not going to admit that the science in the area of climate is being done by real scientists who post here.
    Me, I’m enjoying the live dialog, and yes, I enjoy that people who post aren’t perfect, and make mistakes, but then again, if you’re not making mistakes you’re not learning, and you certainly aren’t trying. In what area of endeavor do you make your mistakes, or have you stopped learning?

  5. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:50 am
    “Two mistakes in two days, I’ll give you time to correct it to save embarrassment.”
    Phil, that is not good enough. Unless you provide at least a few facts that indicate what information you used to determine that Steven has made a mistake, your comment is nothing more than unsubstantiated sniping.
    Furthermore, the first mistake made by Steven was corrected almost immediately, within five minutes, without anyone hiding a thing and by providing a full record of the corrections that were made. You know that as well as anyone else on this thread knows. To ignore that correction is mean and unwarranted.

  6. Sorry for the off-topic post, but this guy should be a climate scientist. When the facts don’t fit, instead of disproving his theory, they merely provide exceptions. In this case, the fact that his brain is apparently similar to serial killers means he himself was born to kill. If this guy really believes he has a psychopathic brain, maybe we should lock him up before he hurts anyone. Maybe he’s already killed somebody, and he’s trying to make excuses for it in case he gets caught.
    http://www.newser.com/story/94083/neuroscientist-discovers-hes-a-born-killer.html
    [Yes, off topic. These references should be posted in “Tips & Notes.” ~dbs, mod.]

  7. Im predicting that NH ice will take a pretty drastic turn upside to end with a near normal min based a ice sea concentration (ie most of the let has occurred). THis will be a terrible year for the warmistas as they continue to try to push the agenda against the real data

  8. I guessing that Phil is quarrelling over the exact location of the NARL site. ‘
    I am not even sure that NARL still exists, but if Phil can produce a more precise location for where they are observing I am sure that will make him feel better.
    Wordpress keeps changing the protocol for how you embed youtube videos in comments, but below is the latest satellite sequence. Hopefully it will work this time.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SPXDsM3NlE]

  9. Very nice of Steve to clarify the situation in Pt. Barrow. Not sure how closely the date of ce break up in Pt. Barrow tracks with predicting any final sea ice minimum…or did Steve do a graph on this and I missed it? I think the PIOMAS shows the sea ice clearing completely away from the general coastal area about mid-July, but break up right in Pt. Barrow is not specifically pinpointed:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
    So far things are tracking pretty well with the PIOMAS model. Also found this nice graphic related to other sea ice prediction from Germany:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/prediction/current_estimate.png
    This prediction correlates very well with the other PIOMAS based summer minimum prediction:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/September_ice_extent.html
    I think we are seeing a slight pull back in the current Arctic anomaly from the -1.9 million range into the -1.3 to -1.5 million range for a week or two, but then the acceleration will continue with another big dip down to the -2.0 to -2.1 million sq. km by early August.

  10. Any long range weather forecasts available for the Arctic? It would be interesting to see the forecast for the next 30 days and compare it against reality in early August.

  11. wsbriggs says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:22 am
    Gee Phil,
    Sure do hope for mistakes, don’t we? Not as quick to correct yours, I’ve noticed.

    I’ve noticed too.
    This is from the post 8 days ago:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record/#comment-417880
    my response to him:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record/#comment-417907
    Apparently this was his response though he did not address my ID:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record/#comment-419178
    He had a photo that shows open water at barrow though there is no date on the photo. It can be seen in the satellite photo above there is still ice there.
    I think Phil doesn’t see that he is not just saying Steven Goddard is wrong but also the satellite, and the University of Alaska too. Phil doesn’t see that it is he who is wrong.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    You can correct things now Phil to save embarrassment.

  12. Apologies to all concerned, but so flipping what? It makes no difference to me if all the flipping ice melts in the Arctic Ocean. It would not be a crisis, not a problem, not something to fret about.
    Global warming is not real. If it was, it would be a good thing. Warmer is better. The seas are NOT going to boil. If some sea ice melts, it’s no big deal. I’m not losing any sleep over it.
    The real crisis is that the Government has an agenda of inflicted crises. It is more than rank incompetence. Look at the policies: an unguarded border, hopeless foreign wars, a collapsed economy, decadent schools, Let It Burn, Let It Gush, wolves at your door, tax to the max, you name it. Power feeds off social crisis. The Government manufactures disasters on purpose. They court and coddle saboteurs and alarmists. They hire morons and put them in charge. They strive for catastrophe.
    Global warming is just another hoax to induce panic. The real catastrophes perped by the Government are bad enough.
    Please excuse this interlude and return to the picking of nits regarding egregious junk science and the FEAR of imaginary nothings. There is value to the endeavors here and I appreciate them; it’s just that I think some context is useful now and then.

  13. Stephan says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:55 am
    In predicting that NH ice will take a pretty drastic turn upside to end with a near normal min based a ice sea concentration (ie most of the let has occurred). This will be a terrible year for the warmistas as they continue to try to push the agenda against the real data
    ______________________________________________________
    No the “alarmists” will just see that the data that does not support their agenda never reaches the mass media. Those who own the presses control the news and they are all set to make a killing on carbon trading, carbon derivatives and “green technology” We are going to get carbon taxes, “green technology” subsidies and farming regulations crammed down our throats because:
    1) more regulation means more taxes and bureaucracy so politicians and their hangers-on are happy
    2) more regulation means more taxes and bureaucracy, that means more government borrowing and more interest revenue for the bankers
    3)new regulations means only established corporations with deep pockets can compete. This means no fresh start up companies and the death of smaller companies.
    The bankers, energy and food cartels are are going to push these regs for all they are worth and THEY control a large portion of the advertising bucks.
    The “firing” of Derry Brownfield because he ticked off Monsanto is an illustration of what I am talking about.

  14. Amino Acids: you got the wrong site: AMSR-E’s sideways jump was only July 2 & has dissappeared.
    But NSIDC shows something Longer Term:
    2010 is NOT dropping like 2007 did.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    An earlier poster gave numbers on this, but the first week of July, 2007, was spectacular.
    The angle of Descent of 2010 hasn’t changed. Looks like it might continue parallel & below 2007 AFTER the drop but Certainly without the wide gap.
    Norsex’s indexes have both years’ lines on top of each other again.
    However comparing the Open Water spots (Polynnya) to other Years’ … 2007 & 2010 DEFINIATELY have the same 3 polynnya.
    This means the 2 Great Melt-Offs DEFINATELY share El Nino Wind/Warmth as their Cause.

    This El Nino was stronger AND Last Year had less ice than 2007’s Previous year (2006), so 2010 has thinner Ice to melt — especially around the Pole.
    We likely will find out if Our pattern of Ocean Currents reverse if that area Heats in the Sun.
    I sure Hope not.
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e&mode=img&size=L&date=set&y=2007&m=7&d=2
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e&mode=img&size=L&date=set&y=2010&m=7&d=2
    Note 2010’s Narrow Clear lane along Northeast Siberia, extending: the Baring Strait Polynnya Westwards: narrow now, but about to mushroom. Same as 2007’s narrow open water off Canada on June 26th exploded, though still less than 2010. New Siberian Islands’ Polynnya similar in both.
    Note you can Plug in any Day by changing the url e.g. 2007&m=7&d=2 is 2007 month#7 day#2
    Re Steve: The basis of this Post is correct.
    But your Leadoff Photo is a Stock Pic (not current) I’ve complained about before.
    & I cannot interpret your 3rd pic. What is Land ?
    SO: This is the CURRENT Barrow radar http://ak.aoos.org/data/ice/radar/BRWICE/staging/radar/SIRwebimg.png
    When I cited little Ice visible a few days ago, the 5-mile chunk was out of range.
    It sure is visible now.
    How to see the Barrow Radar:
    1. That line is NOT the only ice: it is a Pressure Ridge 10 feet high or so & is drowning out the lesser reflection from Flat Ice around it.
    So ignore its thinness, consider its BRIGHTNESS, & think: HUGE.
    2. The “Ponds” are inland, & don’t count.
    3. The remaining Landfast Ice is only a few hundred yards to either side of the Navy station. Couldn’t manufacture a sillier placement.
    — it Still counts – – but it looks ridiculous.

  15. “Mike D. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:41 am
    Global warming is not real. If it was, it would be a good thing. Warmer is better. ”
    Mike, you are absolutely right.
    Only insane people could turn this around like they have.
    In spite of all the negatives that they claim, any sane person with half a brain knows that the “climate” is never static, and can see that the positives from warmer, far far outweight any negatives. We would be in one hell of a mess if the climate was getting colder.

  16. Re: Jim on July 3, 2010 at 7:37 am
    Now how can this possibly be off-topic in an ice thread when it deals with sublimation? 😉
    People have core urges, you may call them instinctual motivations, compelling them to do things socially unacceptable. So they redirect those urges, those energies, into socially acceptable behavior. Classical example is surgeons, takes a certain mindset to be comfortable cutting into a living body, plus there is the “holding one’s life in your hand,” “the power to decide if someone lives or dies” aspect. These are of course traits that can be found in serial killers.
    For this particular neuroscientist, I am reminded of the old thought about why people become psychologists, because they know they are messed up and are seeking how to treat themselves (disclaimer: of course it doesn’t apply to all of them…). Seems he sensed something was different about himself, got himself a career studying differences, specifically he spent the last twenty years studying the brains of killers per the article. Like someone from a family with alcoholics who decides not to even try drinking, he’s aware there could be a problem, now he’s also let others know of it, plus he has a socially acceptable outlet for those urges. Therefore, for all practical purposes, he’s rendered himself harmless.
    Nowadays we have a great tool for sublimation, the internet. Seems there are always people, often frustrated ones, who have pent-up urges to do violent acts. Rather than smashing things, kicking dogs, and engaging in domestic violence, they can go online and “beat up” people mercilessly, all day long, whenever they want, even anonymously without fear of real-world reprisals. Some just lash out, some go for straightforward sadistic behavior. It can be argued the anonymity of the internet encourages this, but also that it is a good thing for society as it does provide an outlet, and it has long been acknowledged that if you have to rant then the internet is a good place to do so. Of course it’s not that good to be on the receiving end of even internet-type violence, seems some people need further sublimation.

  17. R. Gates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:27 am
    For all the Petaflopping and Supercomputing power, it still takes a human being to sit down and look at what is going on.
    PIOMASS is like Windows, it’s always promising to be the perfect operating system, but human have to suffer with it.
    But, you should take heart: Soon, you can have a car that decides to switch lanes on you, and do other stuff that humans normally do. It might save you from a fatal accident, or it might put you in front of an oncoming Semi. Results will vary between a swoosh and a spot.
    Take the bus, and leave the driving to us.

  18. [snip – calling people “stupid” and “idiots” for expression an opinion is best done on other blogs, like RC. Clean it up or get off ~mod]

  19. Charles Wilson says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:58 am
    Amino Acids: you got the wrong site:
    How is IARC-JAXA a wrong site?

  20. Charles Wilson says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:58 am
    AMSR-E’s sideways jump was only July 2
    2010 movement toward 2007 in the JAXA graph started on June 30.

  21. The so-called “leading ice expert,” Veli Albert Kallio, said a few days ago that the Arctic sea ice could be entirely melted by August 8th.
    You can see his insightful reasoning here. That’s right, a mere 36 days from now!
    ClimateSanity

  22. Steven Goddard
    This was observed above;
    ‘The so-called “leading ice expert,” Veli Albert Kallio, said a few days ago that the Arctic sea ice could be entirely melted by August 8th. You can see his insightful reasoning here. That’s right, a mere 36 days from now!’
    Can I hereby request the international rights for a staged showdown between you and Mr Kallio? I think a lot of people would pay good money to see the scientific fur fly.
    Thats 20% each for you and Mr Kallio and 10% to Anthony to defray his Australian trip. Tickets will go on sale as soon as I get the nod. 🙂
    tonyb

  23. tonyb,
    Maybe we should have a Tour de Arctic?
    Lance Armstrong recovered from cancer to be a champion bike racer. I don’t know if it is possible to recover from long-term CO2 neurosis though.

  24. “He has applied the same keen insight to the Arctic sea ice that he applies to his search for Atlantis.”

  25. For those who care, here’s Topaz’s current Beaufort Sea ice thickness forecast, which includes the area near Pt. Barrow:
    http://topaz.nersc.no/Knut/IceForecast/Beaufort/ice-forecast-03-Jul-2010_hice.jpg
    Which correlates very well with the PIOMAS forecast made over a month ago:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
    Also very helpful to look at the warm temps around the Arctic in general, and note especially the high pressure systems parked over each side (east and west) of the Arctic:
    http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/arcisoTTPPWW.gif
    You may also want to take a look at the current temperature anomalies for the Arctic:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    Where we see, (despite a possible growing La Nina) in the eastern Pacific, there is lots of anomalous ocean warmth in the Arctic.
    Just some tidbits for you to consider as some of you are forecasting the March 31-June 31 rapid decline in Arctic sea ice extent to suddenly reverse…

  26. Relax, Gates. It’s regional climate variability and nothing else.
    I’ll bet you loved to scare yourself with ghost stories when you were a kid.

  27. Is there a sewage treatment site at Pt. Barrow? If so, where does the effluent go?

  28. Excerpted from: R. Gates on July 3, 2010 at 8:27 am

    This prediction correlates very well with the other PIOMAS based summer minimum prediction:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/September_ice_extent.html

    You might want to check that. Although Zhang and Lindsay have worked together and are both at the Polar Science Center, it looks clear they are using different methods. They have submitted separate predictions for the June edition of the 2010 SEARCH September Sea Ice Outlook (Pan-Arctic tab). Here’s Lindsay’s:

    Lindsay et al. (Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington); 4.4 Million Square Kilometers; Statistical
    Our prediction is made with model data from the end of May 2010. We are using May data for the 22 years 1988 through 2009 to fit a linear regression model and then the ice conditions for 2010 to make the predictions. The best single predictor is the fraction of the area with open water or ice less than 1.0 m thick, G1.0. This predictor explains 79% of the variance. The predicted extent in September is 4.44 +/- 0.39 million square kilometers. The one-standard-deviation error bar includes the record low of 2007, so a new record would not be a surprise. The regions most influential in making the prediction are in the Beaufort Sea, the Barents Sea, and the Kara Sea. All of these regions have greater than normal fractions of thin ice, and the G1.0 variable in these regions have a significant correlation with the September ice extent.

    I see no mention on Linsay’s September prediction page of PIOMAS, the graphs do not resemble PIOMAS graphs as found on Zhang’s forecast page. Lindsay mentions “model data” and “regression model,” not PIOMAS. The closest thing I can see to a connection is on Zhang’s page it says: “Jinlun Zhang and Ron Lindsay” but for the SEARCH Outlooks Zhang’s name alone appears with his prediction while Lindsay’s is “et al.”
    Thus it does not appear that Lindsay’s prediction is PIOMAS based.
    For added fun, there’s another Outlook submission from PSC:

    Rigor et al. (Polar Science Center, University of Washington); 5.4 Million Square Kilometers; Heuristic
    This estimate is based on the prior winter Arctic Oscillation (AO) conditions, and the spatial distribution of the sea ice of different ages as estimated from a Drift-age Model (DM), which combines buoy drift and retrievals of sea ice drift from satellites (Rigor and Wallace, 2004, updated). The DM model has been validated using independent estimates of ice type from QuikSCAT (e.g., Nghiem et al. 2007) and in situ observations of ice thickness from submarines, electromagnetic sensors, etc. (e.g., Haas et al. 2008; Rigor 2005).

    So there is another “et al” not using PIOMAS. Far as the 2010 Outlook is concerned, looks like Zhang is all alone in using PIOMAS.
    (Side note about a long-time irritation: For those naming satellite missions, how could you have thought that “QuikSCAT” was such a great choice? “Fetch the Loperamide tablets!”)

  29. TonyB,
    Can I get a few percent for having broken the story?
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity

  30. stevengoddard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am
    I guessing that Phil is quarrelling over the exact location of the NARL site. ‘
    I am not even sure that NARL still exists, but if Phil can produce a more precise location for where they are observing I am sure that will make him feel better.

    Steve if you’re going to make a snarky post preaching to us where the NARL site is you really ought to know yourself! Here is a corrected version of your map:
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/barrowmap23.jpg

  31. From: stevengoddard on July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am

    I guessing that Phil is quarrelling over the exact location of the NARL site. ‘
    I am not even sure that NARL still exists, but if Phil can produce a more precise location for where they are observing I am sure that will make him feel better.

    Could this information about Barrow be helpful?

    School Notes:
    -Located in the northernmost point of Alaska, Ilisagvik College is a two-year community college offering quality post-secondary academic, vocational and technical education aimed at matching workforce needs. We are dedicated to perpetuating and strengthening Inupiat (Eskimo) culture, language, values and traditions.
    (skip)
    -The Ilisagvik College campus is situated at what was originally the United States Naval Arctic Research Laboratory (NARL). In 1995 this site became the newly renovated main campus for Ilisagvik College through a lease with Ukpiagvik Iñupiat Corporation (UIC). The main building on campus houses the residential center, Ilisaqtuat Tukkumaviat and a full-service cafeteria. This building also contains administrative offices, student services, and instructional administration and support. Also located on the main campus is a Recreation Center for students, faculty, and staff. The Heavy Truck, Industrial Safety, Associated Construction Trades, Academic Studies, Computer and Business classes are located in renovated Quonset huts on the main campus grounds.

    Yes, there is a Google map.

  32. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:00 am
    He had a photo that shows open water at barrow though there is no date on the photo. It can be seen in the satellite photo above there is still ice there.
    I suggest you look more carefully, the photos I posted are date and time stamped.
    I think Phil doesn’t see that he is not just saying Steven Goddard is wrong
    Steve’s posts on this subject has been misleading and contained errors, he avoids responding when this is pointed out to him, and usually makes another post which just digs the hole deeper.
    but also the satellite, and the University of Alaska too.
    Nothing wrong with them, just Steve’s misrepresenting them, e.g.
    according to Steve this shows the ‘temp at Barrow running well below normal’:
    http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/histgraphall.gif
    I can only assume that he misread the dewpoint for temperature.
    He also posted: “Ice offshore of Barrow, Alaska is showing little signs of melt so far.”
    And showed a graph to support this assertion, he failed to mention (notice?) that the site had stopped operating ten days before!
    Etc.

  33. With La Nina starting to show I agree that things are slowing down-Joe Bastardi
    is/was right, I will throw out 500 quatloos that the Ice Minimum is well above 2008,
    and possibly at or above 2006…..

  34. I don’t post here too often, but I read this site every day to learn as much as I can.
    Over the last few months, I have become very annoyed by those who are posting here only to try and tear others down as opposed to creating a better scientific understanding.
    Phil, you make a comment about Steve but YOU started the entire thread off by being rude.
    Phil, please quit being immature and rude. You obviously do know something about this subject matter and as a person who is interested in learning as much as possible I value different views. Please keep it about the science.

  35. Amino Acids in Meteorites says at 9:00 am: [ … ]
    When I make a mistake here I admit it. Done it several times. It stings, but it makes me more careful. And we know that Steve G is a standup guy. But Phil….
    When Phil makes a mistake, his M.O. is to disappear until the smoke clears, then re-appear later and resume criticizing others as if nothing happened.
    That way, Phil – unlike everyone else – is never, ever wrong! ☺

  36. mcates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    I don’t post here too often, but I read this site every day to learn as much as I can.
    Over the last few months, I have become very annoyed by those who are posting here only to try and tear others down as opposed to creating a better scientific understanding.
    Phil, you make a comment about Steve but YOU started the entire thread off by being rude.

    I was not rude I pointed out that Steve had made a mistake, he knew what I meant because I’d told him about it before. I didn’t have time to correct his map at that point as I was leaving, when I came back I fixed it. Steve likes to counter criticisms of his postings by snarky ripostes such as this post, when you do that it behooves you to be accurate (which he wasn’t in this case, he later admitted he didn’t know where NARL was!)
    Phil, please quit being immature and rude. You obviously do know something about this subject matter and as a person who is interested in learning as much as possible I value different views. Please keep it about the science.
    It is about the science, Steve’s misleading posts don’t help anyone learn.

  37. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    So you’re telling me the satellite photo is wrong?

  38. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    The date is underneath the photo, it was not on the photo where i was expecting it to be.
    But the photo in not on Barrow. If it were it would mean the satellite photo is wrong. This cannot be true.

  39. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    but also the satellite, and the University of Alaska too.
    Nothing wrong with them, just Steve’s misrepresenting them, e.g.

    There is no misrepresentation. Their forecast is for July 7. I am reading it at the site:
    Current forecast for break-up: on July 7
    same as is said above in the post, the same link provided above in the post:
    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

  40. Smokey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says at 9:00 am: [ … ]
    When I make a mistake here I admit it. Done it several times. It stings, but it makes me more careful. And we know that Steve G is a standup guy. But Phil….
    When Phil makes a mistake, his M.O. is to disappear until the smoke clears, then re-appear later and resume criticizing others as if nothing happened.
    That way, Phil – unlike everyone else – is never, ever wrong! ☺

    What I have said here that’s wrong?

  41. mcates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Over the last few months, I have become very annoyed by those who are posting here only to try and tear others down as opposed to creating a better scientific understanding.

    Ditto!

  42. mcates says: “…Phil, please quit being immature and rude….Please keep it about the science.”
    Phil is just giving us his version of science. Don’t expect anything much different from what you saw in Climategate: shoddy science, politicized science, hiding decline science, incestuous peer review science, models-are-experiments science, nasty behaviour science, dog-ate-my-homework science. It’s a travesty.

  43. Phil,
    I also want more on this comment you made on the disintegrated chunk of ice off Barrow.
    This is what you had said:
    The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is……The water there is about 50+m deep as far as I can tell and no islands…….When it disintegrates like that piece did it’s pretty rotten.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/ice-dancing/#comment-417091
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/ice-dancing/#comment-417387
    You called it rotted ice. You played the alarmist card.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    Video of what disintegrated that chunk of ice. It was a stationary object:

  44. This will be my last comment to you Phil.
    If you apply that same type of logic to your science that you do in your comment to me, then that is just pathetic.
    Phil says: Two mistakes in two days, I’ll give you time to correct it to save embarrassment.
    The huge flaw in logic for all to see, but you is that the embarrassment cannot possibly be saved if you post the mistake at the very beginning of the thread.
    If you truly wanted to save him the embarassment of a mistake you would have contacted him privately and given him the opportunity to correct it himself.
    That’s not what happened.

  45. Phil,
    Sorry, you are behaving like a spoiled and dull witted two year old. The top image of this article shows “NARL” between the city and Point Barrow. It makes no difference exactly where those buildings are. Obviously is no sea ice on land.
    You don’t know the exact location of their ice measurement, and neither do I. The entire region northeast of Barrow has sea ice, and you are just arguing mindlessly about nothing.

  46. When a normal high is 40 and it’s 35 that is well below. The earth has warmed by 0 .75 degrees in the last 150 years and you alarmists are running around like your hair is on fire asking the world to pay 1 trillion dollars to fix the 0.75°. If 5 degrees in not well below normal then please refrain the alarmism about 0.75°.

  47. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 3, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    The date is underneath the photo, it was not on the photo where i was expecting it to be.

    Well that’s where the University of Alaska Fairbanks decided to put it, apology accepted.
    But the photo in not on Barrow. If it were it would mean the satellite photo is wrong. This cannot be true.
    According to UAF it’s at 71° 17′ 33″ N, 156° 47′ 18″ W check it out on Google Earth.

  48. mcates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    This will be my last comment to you Phil.
    If you apply that same type of logic to your science that you do in your comment to me, then that is just pathetic.
    Phil says: Two mistakes in two days, I’ll give you time to correct it to save embarrassment.
    The huge flaw in logic for all to see, but you is that the embarrassment cannot possibly be saved if you post the mistake at the very beginning of the thread.
    If you truly wanted to save him the embarassment of a mistake you would have contacted him privately and given him the opportunity to correct it himself.
    That’s not what happened.

    That’s exactly what I did, my posts go into moderation, all they had to do was tell Steve and not add my post to the thread, that they chose not to isn’t my fault.
    [Note: WUWT does not censor posts, and moderators are not messengers unless specifically requested. ~dbs, mod.]

  49. rbateman says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:46 am
    @ R. Gates
    “For all the Petaflopping and Supercomputing power, it still takes a human being to sit down and look at what is going on.
    PIOMASS is like Windows, it’s always promising to be the perfect operating system, but human have to suffer with it.
    But, you should take heart: Soon, you can have a car that decides to switch lanes on you, and do other stuff that humans normally do. It might save you from a fatal accident, or it might put you in front of an oncoming Semi. Results will vary between a swoosh and a spot.
    Take the bus, and leave the driving to us.”
    ======================
    Well said, Robert.
    You have hit the nail on that head.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  50. Phil. says:
    “What I have said here that’s wrong?”
    That, my friends, is what is known as a rhetorical question. Aside from the specific examples that quickly followed [and there are others; see Dr Glassman’s corrections], let’s think about what Phil is implying:
    “I have never made a mistake or said something that was shown to be incorrect, so I have no need to admit that I was ever wrong – certainly not to the hoi polloi here.”
    Everyone makes mistakes and gets things wrong from time to time. Everyone. Phil just won’t admit that this applies to him, too. He says “apology accepted” in this thread, as if he’s scored some kind of point. But Phil never apologizes himself. Because if he did, he would be admitting that he’s simply another commenter with an opinion, just like the rest of us.
    Phil’s central purpose in life is to nitpick everything here that he possibly can. That demonstrates excessive insecurity; a common trait among CAGW fanatics.

  51. stevengoddard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:46 pm
    Phil,
    Sorry, you are behaving like a spoiled and dull witted two year old. The top image of this article shows “NARL” between the city and Point Barrow. It makes no difference exactly where those buildings are. Obviously is no sea ice on land.

    No you are following your normal practice of making false statements and then refusing point blank to accept correction, like you did about the CO2 phase diagrams, which got you banned from posting here for a while! The top image due to UAF shows exactly where NARL is situated, not where you chose to put it.
    You don’t know the exact location of their ice measurement, and neither do I. The entire region northeast of Barrow has sea ice, and you are just arguing mindlessly about nothing.
    UAF are quite clear where they are forecasting breakup: “We define break-up as the first detected movement of landfast ice shoreward of grounded ridges within the 20 m-isobath off NARL, approximately 5 miles north of Barrow.” I.e. where I showed it to be, when it breaks there that’s breakup whether there’s any sea ice at Point Barrow or not. That’s the measurement you chose to base your post on, based on their current values it looks like it will not be the ‘latest Barrow ice breakup on record’, indeed it could still be one of the earliest on record!

  52. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    That’s exactly what I did, my posts go into moderation, all they had to do was tell Steve and not add my post to the thread, that they chose not to isn’t my fault.
    =====================================
    Well of COURSE…it isn’t your fault that they chose not to NOT air errant posts, Phil (lol).
    For you, it is ALWAYS someone else’s fault.
    The good thing is that it is quite easy to understand “that” and see right through the fragile game.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  53. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 3, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    Phil,
    I also want more on this comment you made on the disintegrated chunk of ice off Barrow.
    This is what you had said:
    The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is……The water there is about 50+m deep as far as I can tell and no islands…….When it disintegrates like that piece did it’s pretty rotten.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/ice-dancing/#comment-417091
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/ice-dancing/#comment-417387
    You called it rotted ice. You played the alarmist card.

    Nothing ‘alarmist’ about describing an ice floe as ‘rotten’, it’s rather common at this time of year when the ice is melting.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    Video of what disintegrated that chunk of ice. It was a stationary object:

    It was a solid ice floe, the ‘rotten’ one disintegrated!

  54. [Note: WUWT does not censor posts, and moderators are not messengers unless specifically requested. ~dbs, mod.]
    I didn’t imagine this:
    Archeopteryx says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:02 am
    [snip – calling people “stupid” and “idiots” for expression an opinion is best done on other blogs, like RC. Clean it up or get off ~mod]

    So since you don’t pass on such posts to the OP then the only way to point out the error on the thread.

  55. A really interesting thing about the impersonal nature of these blogs, is that each individual on here, passes or fails, on the basis of his/her words.
    In other words, there is no personal “shifty-eyed salesman” “used car shyster” energy possible, because there is no personal interaction possible.
    There is just a grayish and whitish screen….with people’s words.
    My dad always told me and still tells me….you are nothing without your “word.”
    And, let’s face it…people’s personalities…come through the gray-white screen.
    So for those who like to hide behind the screen and make potshots (and nitpick)…the negative energy from your words…precedes you…and trust me, it does.
    For the rest of the many extremely bright and open-minded individuals on here, who are sincerely hungry for the truth, who have respect for the scientific method, and an awe of the universe, I listen hard and learn much from what you have to say.
    But for the few card-carrying narcissists here who find it rather easy to hide behind a computer keyboard…who can not admit when they are wrong or even concede they don’t know the answer…their words ring hollow…and it is bizarre because everyone else…sees their weakness…but them.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  56. Smokey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:21 pm
    Phil. says:
    “What I have said here that’s wrong?”
    That, my friends, is what is known as a rhetorical question.

    No it’s an ordinary question.
    Aside from the specific examples that quickly followed
    The specific examples appear to rely on failing to read what Steve actually posted, in his usual disingenuous manner Steve also dropped the ‘well’ when he followed up!
    let’s think about what Phil is implying:
    “I have never made a mistake or said something that was shown to be incorrect, so I have no need to admit that I was ever wrong – certainly not to the hoi polloi here.”

    Nope, that’s your straw man.
    Everyone makes mistakes and gets things wrong from time to time. Everyone. Phil just won’t admit that this applies to him, too.
    Of course, and I do make mistakes and acknowledge them.
    He says “apology accepted” in this thread, as if he’s scored some kind of point.
    Actually I was being sarcastic, Amino Acids in Meteorites said that I had posted undated photographs of Barrow with the implication that I was being dishonest. When I posted that they were dated and time-stamped, he responded that he hadn’t seen the dates, no apology of course!
    But Phil never apologizes himself. Because if he did, he would be admitting that he’s simply another commenter with an opinion, just like the rest of us.
    Phil’s central purpose in life is to nitpick everything here that he possibly can. That demonstrates excessive insecurity; a common trait among CAGW fanatics.

    This isn’t about opinions it’s about facts.
    Steve and I disagree about what the arctic seaice minimum for example but his opinion is as good as mine, which one of us is right will be determined this fall. Where UAF determine the breakup date is a fact not an opinion.

  57. Phil. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    Nothing ‘alarmist’ about describing an ice floe as ‘rotten’
    But ‘rotted’ is what the alarmists–like you—are calling Arctic ice. Let’s not move the goal posts now. But what else could I expect? Moving the goal posts is what manmade global warming believers have always done.

  58. I can’t believe I came back here this late at night on a holiday weekend to reply to someone who is hardcore in global warming. I need to get a life.

  59. This quote brings Phil to mind:

    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.
    ~ Prof Richard Lindzen

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented in what’s happening in the Arctic. It is entirely within the past parameters of natural variability. But the Arctic is all the alarmist arm-wavers have, so that’s what they try to scare people with.
    The problem is that people like Phil are causing substantial harm to society with their trumped up scare tactics.

  60. Judging by the large amount of ice debris (much of it dirty) drifting down the coast past Barrow today it looks like the breakup has started.

  61. Smokey says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:24 am
    The problem is that people like Phil are causing substantial harm to society with their trumped up scare tactics.
    No this is a ‘trumped up scare tactic’:
    David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am
    I have applied Butler and Johnson’s methodology to a number of other temperature records. Good correlations are seen in the CET, de Bilt, Archangel and four stations in the northeastern US. These latter four indicate a 2 degree C cooling for the latitude of the US-Canadian border.
    I finished my lectures on the tour by saying that Canadian agriculture will be back to trapping beavers by the end of the decade. A 2 degree fall should reduce the Canadian grain growing area to next to nothing.

  62. Phil,
    I can’t imagine what it is that you are arguing about. The University of Alaska predicts that the ice will break up on July 7. Satellite photos from today show that the ice is intact.
    Do you believe that there is a conspiracy by the University of Alaska, NASA and myself to fool people into believing that there is still ice present? Weird – to say the least.

  63. Phil tries to wiggle out of the charge that he is fueling the scare tactics, which result in substantial harm to society.
    But there is no wiggle room.

  64. Below is a video showing the area around NARL from July 1 through July 4. There has been no visible change in the ice.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y9tE_iHs84]

  65. Have to say that it’s rather pointless with so many WUWT posts being posted about Barrow. If it melted completed and people were boiling potatatoes in the sea just off the beach because it was so hot then it would not mean much, same for if it was ice all summer.
    Why are we getting so bogged down about one seaside town?
    Steve, stop going on about Barrow and get back on track with the bigger picture, all this shows is you and Phil have different points of view about one small resort 🙂
    Andy

  66. Thanx for going back to Hitting each other with Data & Pics.
    Maybe I should be sorry I brought up using outdated pics — since few have dates.
    But the More Data the Better:
    Numerically, Sea Ice Extent: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
    Comparing – – – – 2007 – – to – – 2010
    June 1-30 -65,150/day – 75,496
    June30-July31 -98,610/day ?
    July 31-minimum = 6,409/day drop, x 55 days in 2007
    June 30-7/1 _ – 169,061 ____ – 56,093
    July 1-2 ___ – 162,031 ____ – 82,969
    July 2-3 ___ – 201,875 ____ – 47,656
    July 3-4 ___ – 130,937 ____ ???????
    July 4-5 ___ – 89,844
    July 5-6 ___ – 93,125
    July 6-7 ___ – 81,650
    July 7-8 ___ – 74,844
    July 8-9 ___ – 85,937
    July 9-10 __ – 135,157
    Ahead June 30 – – – no – – – – – – – 569,532 km2
    Ahead July 3 – – – no – – – – – – – 249,062
    Obviously, the catastrophic Hudson Bay Ice loss elevated 2010 last week, now 2007 gets the (temporary) boost.

  67. Here’s a Cryosphere chart of the Central Arctic showing how the last 3 days’ clouds have curbed 2010 Growth
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
    You can check out the Beaufort & Laptev Sea Polynnya & their anomalies are still increasing.
    But look at Wacky Concentration:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
    Remember the Pips chart of FAST Clockwise Drift ? well the Multi year Ice looked like a Scythe & EVERYONE thought it would stay put.
    Wrong.
    It’s the WEATHER.
    It’s swung around & the tip is snared south of the New Siberian Islands.
    Will it sweep on, & cover the Polynnya ?
    Or will the Polynnya, rapidly expanding North as in 2007, melt the HEAVY Ice by having that Ice come to IT ?
    PS sorry about the chart glitch: adding more spaces:
    Comparing ________ 2007 _____to____ 2010__
    June 1-30 ______ – 65,150/day ______ – 75,496
    June30-July31 ___ – 98,610/day ______ ????

  68. Charles Wilson
    You can’t read much, if anything, into short term fluctuations in the UIUC data. This time of year they have a difficult time distinguishing between meltwater on the surface and seawater.

  69. stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Phil,
    I can’t imagine what it is that you are arguing about.

    I’m not arguing, just commenting on what’s happening today, you appear to be unable to accept that for some reason.
    The University of Alaska predicts that the ice will break up on July 7.
    Yes, they made that prediction on the 30th based on 3 day old data, they also pointed out that such predictions were unreliable beyond 3-7 days. Clearly they wouldn’t have any problem saying that breakup had occurred tomorrow.
    Satellite photos from today show that the ice is intact.
    To quote you from earlier ‘you must have X-ray eyes’, what are the dates and times of those images? I find the radar and camera a bit more informative, higher resolution and no clouds (although some fog for the camera).
    Do you believe that there is a conspiracy by the University of Alaska, NASA
    No, after all it’s their data I’m looking at.
    and myself to fool people into believing that there is still ice present?
    You on the other hand I’m not sure about.

  70. stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:01 am
    AndyW
    Have to say, you are wrong on all counts.
    Can I have a point for consistency? :p
    Andy

  71. stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    Phil
    The ice is still there.

    So you say, any evidence to support that assertion?
    Your endless chatter has absolutely no effect on the ice.
    Nor does your continued refusal to look at the evidence.

  72. From: AndyW on July 4, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Can I have a point for consistency? :p

    Sure, why not? Here’s your point.
    <8^|
    Enjoy!

  73. Phil,
    How many times do I have to repeat the same data? The University of Alaska updated their breakup forecast this morning, and have pushed the date back to July 8.
    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup
    The satellite photos which I already provided you from July 1-July 4 show no change in the ice.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y9tE_iHs84]
    Like Anu, you seem to be having difficulty interpreting very basic information.

  74. New forecast for the break-up!

    Current forecast for break-up: on July 8

    Yup, things are still looking so solid there they added on another day.
    An indication of how solid the ice was at a certain time, thus indicating its possible longevity, can be found at the Barrow website by clicking on the Field Blog link. There one finds:

    Sea Ice Group Field Blogs
    Melt, 30 May–20 June 2010: Chris Petrich

    (…) Andy Mahoney joined the party when we recovered the Mass Balance probe with the steam drill. All instruments were still solidly frozen into the ice, very unlike last year. (…)

    As noted on the Barrow site:

    The Mass Balance Probe was recovered from the ice and is not operational anymore since 14 June 2010.

    Thus about three weeks ago the ice was observed at that point to be of better quality than last year.

  75. AndyW
    The Barrow site provides unique quality and historical data. It is also located near the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, which have been hot spots over the last few summers. It is a uniquely important data point.

  76. kadaka
    I expect that the ice will last longer than July 8.
    Their forecast is based on TSI received at the site, and under that criteria (only 100MJ/m^2 to their target) their forecast is almost certain to come up short this year. Note that in most years breakup has occurred after their forecast date.

  77. stevengoddard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 4:50 am
    Phil,
    How many times do I have to repeat the same data? The University of Alaska updated their breakup forecast this morning, and have pushed the date back to July 8.
    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

    I tried to post about this earlier but the post apparently didn’t make it.
    The change in date was due to a computer problem causing the loss of data from earlier in the month (when I saw the changes in the SW flux graph this morning I knew something had gone wrong). Now that that has been fixed the breakup date has been revised to July 5th! The radar and website images from today indicate that breakup has probably started.

  78. stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    Phil
    The ice is still there. Your endless chatter has absolutely no effect on the ice.

    In fact UAF agree with me:
    “4 July, 2010: break-out at NARL, ice present between Point Barrow and NARL
    25 June, 2010: break-out downtown Barrow, ice present between Point Barrow and Browerville”
    Exactly as I’ve been telling you here since your original Barrow post.

  79. Looks like it depends on the exact location where they are measuring. A chunk of ice did break off NE of Barrow sometime in the last couple of days.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR7TWniSUH4]

  80. stevengoddard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:47 pm
    Looks like it depends on the exact location where they are measuring. A chunk of ice did break off NE of Barrow sometime in the last couple of days.

    According to UAF:
    “The coastal RADAR showed considerable landfast ice movement at NARL in the early morning hours of the 4th of July. This is the region of interest for the break-up forecast. In addition, the webcam overlooking the coast at downtown Barrow showed a large number of pieces of ice drifting by starting in the early morning hours of 4 July. Satellite images taken on the 5th of July show that the ice off the coast of NARL had disappeared. We are currently investigating when exactly the ice started to move at NARL, and whether there were any grounded pressure ridges involved. Our best guess at the moment is that break-up or break-out took place on the 4th of July. This is comparatively early (see below). The sealevel pressure reached a minimum at midnight, indicating potentially high sea level.”
    Which is what I posted about here on the 4th.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/barrow-update/#comment-422847

  81. Phil,
    This post was from July 3, and the ice apparently broke up on the 4th. So you can go ahead and admit that the article was correct, rather than continuing to claim otherwise.
    BTW – The ice is still intact just north of NARL.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn86cAcXlIQ]

  82. Phil,
    Also, you forgot to quote the UofA comments discarding your earlier incorrect claims of breakup on June 25

    25 June, 2010: break-out downtown Barrow, ice present between Point Barrow and Browerville
    The coastal RADAR showed a large chunk of landfast ice break out in the early morning hours of 25 June. While this section is in plain view of the webcam, it is South of the region of interest for the forecast.

  83. stevengoddard says:
    July 6, 2010 at 7:05 am
    Phil,
    This post was from July 3, and the ice apparently broke up on the 4th. So you can go ahead and admit that the article was correct, rather than continuing to claim otherwise.

    The article focussed on the fact that the point where the breakup was being measured was not at Barrow itself (in that regard it was correct but wasn’t the issue anyway).
    However the article incorrectly identified the location of the measurement which I clarified, however you continued to argue about it, and still talk about the ice at Pt Barrow (see below).
    BTW – The ice is still intact just north of NARL.
    We know and we don’t care because the measurement point for which the prediction is made is NARL! You chose to write an article about the late June prediction of a break up at NARL on 11th July and that this would be a record for lateness, in fact it wasn’t, rather it was early. When some of your assertions were contested you denied that you were wrong, well you’ve been shown by events to be wrong on almost everything so perhaps a little humility might be in order instead of continued bluster?

  84. stevengoddard says:
    July 6, 2010 at 8:28 am
    Phil,
    Also, you forgot to quote the UofA comments discarding your earlier incorrect claims of breakup on June 25
    25 June, 2010: break-out downtown Barrow, ice present between Point Barrow and Browerville
    The coastal RADAR showed a large chunk of landfast ice break out in the early morning hours of 25 June. While this section is in plain view of the webcam, it is South of the region of interest for the forecast.

    Steve give up already, you’re just digging your hole deeper! The claims I made about breakup at Barrow on the morning of the 25th are confirmed by the statement from UAF. You were wrong, accept it!
    In response to your repeated assertions that there was no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, e.g.
    “Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?
    Posted on June 26, 2010 by charles the moderator
    By Steven Goddard,
    In my last post, we discussed how there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.

    In response I posted this:
    Phil. says:
    June 28, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    Fortunately for Steve the Barrow site was down over the weekend otherwise his comments would have almost immediately contradicted since the fast ice at Barrow broke up over the weekend. As I mentioned just before the site went down it was showing ice free off the beach (25th at 19:22) with a boat in close to shore, in the fog the only ice visible is to the northeast.
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam.jpg
    Now the fog is gone and a remnant of the fast ice can be seen drifting offshore:
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam-1.jpg
    Contrary to Steve’s claim that nothing was happening to the ice if you look at the radar over the last few days you can see small pieces breaking off until about the morning of the 25th when it totally disintegrated and blew offshore. Steve expects the fast ice to the northeast to hang around for another two weeks, doesn’t seem very likely.
    http://ak.aoos.org/data/ice/radar/BRWICE/staging/radar/SIRwebanim_more.gif

  85. This is some funny stuff. While the main post is July 3, there are comments by Steve Goddard on both the 4th and the 5th saying “the ice is still there” (where “there” means the NARL reference location). But as Phil, and the Barrow Sea Ice website (U of Alaska) point out, breakout at NARL was in the early hours of the 4th.
    I’d like to point out that that website specifically says “This is comparatively early” of the July 4th date, which makes a laughingstock of Steve’s record late breakup post from a couple of weeks back. Oh, and that post referenced the mass balance graph … for which the instruments had been taken down June 14.
    Maybe this website has a future as an off-Broadway musical comedy.

  86. From: GFW on July 6, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    This is some funny stuff. While the main post is July 3, there are comments by Steve Goddard on both the 4th and the 5th saying “the ice is still there” (where “there” means the NARL reference location). But as Phil, and the Barrow Sea Ice website (U of Alaska) point out, breakout at NARL was in the early hours of the 4th.

    Said break-out or break-up, the site hasn’t specified which, was reported on July 5 after those comments of Steve’s were made. Thus by the Barrow site he was correct when making those statements.

    I’d like to point out that that website specifically says “This is comparatively early” of the July 4th date, which makes a laughingstock of Steve’s record late breakup post from a couple of weeks back. Oh, and that post referenced the mass balance graph … for which the instruments had been taken down June 14.

    O RLY? I just checked that post again, no mention of the mass balance stuff in it. Therefore you have written an untruth. Plus when that post was written July 10 was the prediction on the site and July 11 was the latest break-up on record, so that post was sound then.
    If you had bothered to study the break-up prediction graph you may have noticed that four of the years from 2000 to 2009 were well before July 5, 2001 was on July 5, and the remaining five are closely clustered from July 6 to July 11. Thus 2010 has already beaten the average date, and if it is confirmed that the break-up has occurred on July 5 per the latest prediction then that will put 2010 very close to the latest dates. Thus “comparatively early” is comparatively inaccurate.

    Maybe this website has a future as an off-Broadway musical comedy.

    I know of a certain commentator who has a future as a newspaper news writer…
    🙂

Comments are closed.