Reply to: No more Arctic ice within ten years

[escapeUK]

and you.
At least I.know I've been to these places and met and seen these people. I already know your ethos of if they don't make you money they are as good as dead to you.

Real people are the first nations of Canada, the Inuit, Alaskans, northern Labrador,the Yukon , north west territories, northern Russia etc. Taiga Net: Co-operatively run environmental and community network

I don't know why I even entertain you though DA, you talk tulip and lie for your own profit for a living.

Im sure these real people would love it if the ice would thaw to reveal fertile land they can grow crops and build a civilisation on. But lets pretend that the science is correct, what are you going to do to slash the population by half to stop the continued production of co2? Id be very much in favour of that.

[EternalOptimist]

These blokes tried to row along the northern Alaskan coast, to raise awareness of the ice melting


iced in for ten days

[BlasterBates]

It's not a bomb shell just pointing out that Michael Mann refuted over 100 years of climate research based on a dubious model.

Don't need to publish that, it's out there. You can't ignore published research can you really.

[pjclarke]

Can't get to that site from here, but given that it's 6 months old presumably the Professor has submitted this bombshell to a journal? Given your apparent preference for credentialled scientists, remind me of exactly where he is a Professor, his discipline and publication record?

[BlasterBates]

the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge category

i.e. propaganda


What do you think of Professor Tony Brown's guest post on Professor Judith Curry's blog. Certainly seems to make mincemeat of Mann's hockey stick don't you think?

[sasguru]

But not a climate scientist, just a blogger, who's career has been in drawing cartoons, not performing climate research or publishing any papers. Just not someone, one should take too seriously.
.

Bit like you then, with your dumbed-down degree from the OU, eh?


Your lack of education shows in your inability to assess evidence.
What is it you do for a living again?

[pjclarke]

One may have noticed that BlasterBates often resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument.

Whether Cook was a full time cartoonist back in 2005 or not makes not one jot of difference to his arguments, but if anyone is interested in his more recent resume, last year he was awarded a Eureka Prize (The Australian scientific 'Oscars') in the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge category and he was also appointed to the University of Quensland's Global Change Institute. He has co-authored books with professional climate scientists. Mind you he looks a bit nerdy so global warming must be a scam.

Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize

[BlasterBates]

Since we're on the topic, here is a guest post on Professor Judith Curry's blog about natural variability and the contradictions between what the IPCC says and published research, that shows it isn't quite as simple as all evidence pointing to man made global warming.

The long, slow thaw? | Climate Etc.

[BlasterBates]

But not a climate scientist, just a blogger, who's career has been in drawing cartoons, not performing climate research or publishing any papers. Just not someone, one should take too seriously.

His blogs are often quoted as rebuttals to peer reviewed research papers from professors in Climate/Earth Sciences disciplines.

[Scoobos]

nice try:

He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.

"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible)."


good at drawing cartoons TOO, if this even is the same guy:

Photo Here: http://www.cartoonebooks.com/authors.php
Photo Here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

[BlasterBates]

One may have noticed that pjclarke does often quote Skeptical Science.

This blog is run by John Cook a noted and gifted cartoonist.

John Cook, one of many great authors at Cartoon eBooks

I do not doubt his ability to draw funny cartoons.

[pjclarke]

the people who pin their faith in CAGW on a single tree in the Yamal series.

Logical FAIL for two reasons:

1. Modern warming does not need to be unprecendented to be manmade.

2. I refer you to the literature:

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats.

Over 900 tree time series, all data and code downloadable. Knock yourself out.

[pjclarke]

Sigh. More cherry-picked nonsense (Hint to quote Skeptical Science : If you want to mislead people into thinking that there is nothing weird going on in the Arctic, you have to do it during winter. In winter things almost look normal on some graphs, with gaps between trend lines and long-term averages not as ridiculously big as during spring and summer.). BB's maps are from the US Navy PIPS 2.0 system, a low-resolution ice forecasting model built in the 1980s that told the Navy where it could surface its subs. [So climate models are OK this week?] Sadly it is long obsolete, having been superceded in 2003 by PIPS 3.0 most of the output from which is classified for obvious reasons.

Indeed the proposition that the ice will be less in extent but thicker is laughable, the University of Washington PIOMAS system maintains data on Arctic ice volume, it was recently validated against the new CryoSat data and it shows that volume has been declining faster than extent - over the satellite era we've lost about 75% of ice volume, making an increase in thickness a simple physical impossibility.

[EternalOptimist]

Oh the irony.
being accused of looking at a limited sample by the people who pin their faith in CAGW on a single tree in the Yamal series.

ho ho, you couldn't make it up.


except they do

[BlasterBates]

meanwhile in the real world. drilling halted due to thickest ice in a decade

Yes it looks like the ice is getting thicker not just in that area:

The following shows a comparison between 2008 and 2011:



and the following shows that the ice is indeed thick now



Looks like the ice extent will be similar to 2007 but with substantially thicker ice.