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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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!
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.
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:
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.
Phil. says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:05 pm
What I have said here that’s wrong?
This:
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.
stevengoddard says:
July 3, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Phil,
Let me try again – “Temperatures in Barrow have been running well below normal.”
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2010/6/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=3&monthend=7&yearend=2010&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Are you always so full of it?
Clearly you are, bouncing back and forth between the normal high and low for the day is obviously not “running well below normal”!
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.
Below normal temps:
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=1&year=2010&month=6&dayend=3&yearend=2010&monthend=7&ID=PABR&type=6&width=500
You cannot say they are at normal. You cannot say they are above normal. The graph shows below normal. There’s no trick going on here.
Phil,
Do you have difficulty reading graphs? Since June 1 there have only been nine days which reached the normal high. That means that almost 75% of the days have been colder than normal.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2010/6/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=3&monthend=7&yearend=2010&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
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°.
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.
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.]
rbateman says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:46 am
@ur momisugly 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
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.
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!
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
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!
[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.
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
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.
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.
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.
May day! May day!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
🙂
This quote brings Phil to mind:
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.