Ice sheet overview

Thingsbreak has a great overview of recent research on ice loss in the Antarctic (east and west) and Greenland.

For anyone who has had enough of the freedom vs responsibility of the press discussion (mandas?), perhaps there are some interesting bits in Thingsbreak’s post to mull over.

I have posted on sea ice dynamics before (here), the two topics are not unrelated as stable ice shelves act as resistors to out flowing glaciers. Lost sea ice leads to faster glacial outflow which leads to thining ice sheets.

[Update: I have just observed out my window that it is snowing, I imagine this can only mean a reversal of the trends discussed by thingsbreak! Good news!]

224 thoughts on “Ice sheet overview

  1. That’s pretty interesting RW. Have you actually read the paper or just the abstract?

    How does this change prior understanding? I.e. what does GRACE show for mass balance changes in this area?

    Like

  2. Its the same old Wakefield Gambit:

    “Here’s science paper. It proves something. So there.”

    Of course he didn’t read it for godsakses. We all know that.

    Like

  3. skip

    “….Of course he didn’t read it for godsakses. We all know that…..”

    Ahhh – but I have, and I have saved a copy to my desktop. I will hold off providing any information on the paper until Dick gives us his interpretation of what he thinks it means.

    So how about it Dick? You have linked to a paper. Why did you do so? What were you hoping to achieve by linking to it? In what way do you think the paper adds to the debate? And while you are at it, tell us who told you about it and what their interpretation is.

    Like

  4. There’s always been something about RW’s summer cooling hypothesis that’s struck me as familiar and I finally realized what it is.

    In music production, there is an effect called a compressor. It’s one of the most difficult for people to understand, but it’s probably the most important. What it does is it “tames the peaks”; it reduces the volume when extra-loud sounds come through it. While the description sounds like it makes things quieter, what actually happens is the reverse. Those tamed peaks let you raise the volume of everything else.

    I’m not saying that the climate is being compressed, per se, just that to me it seems as though RW is pointing at reduced peaks, ignoring the raised everything else, and claiming it’s cooler.

    Like

  5. and claiming it’s cooler.

    Ah, but he only claims that of TMax. Overall its actually becoming “less cold”!

    But interesting analogy.

    Like

  6. Why did you do so?

    Because the thread is about sea ice, and I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did. Seems there is more complexity to polar ice than as thought, and not in the models.

    Like

  7. just that to me it seems as though RW is pointing at reduced peaks, ignoring the raised everything else, and claiming it’s cooler.

    Such as? What should I be looking at in the data that would show this. The data is only daily TMax and TMin, highest and lowest of the day.

    Like

  8. “. AGW will produce (not might produce, but WILL produce):”

    He was talking to non-scientists. And he’s got the point that if he talks “science-y” they’ll take his caveats and uncertainties as ‘no problem’. So he left them out.

    What the science says is that under a warming climate, we can expect more extreme weather events more often. Longer, hotter heatwaves are one instance of more extreme weather.

    He’s just shortened the statement, appropriately, for an inexpert audience.

    Like

  9. Dick, Dick, Dick, Dick (shaking my head in sorrow)

    “….Why did you do so?…. Because the thread is about sea ice, and I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did…”

    Doubly wrong. Neither the thread nor the paper is about sea ice, but nice way to show your total lack of comprehension there. This thread – and the paper – is about ice sheets. You do know the difference, right?

    “…The paper is behind a pay wall, but is reviewed in WUWT….”

    Wrong again. And even more hilarious this time. The paper is NOT reviewed at wattsupmybutt. The only thing that Watts does is provide the abstract – he doesn’t even comment on it – and then his minions all discuss the abstract. Not one single one of them even attempts to read or understand the paper before commenting. Here’s the link to watts if anyone wants to see deniers in action. You can even see such gems as “…I guess everyone has seen the latest spew from the liars at nasa….”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-getting-thicker-from-underneath/#more-35458

    And thank you for admitting that you haven’t made the slightest attempt at reading something before offering it as some form of proof of your viewpoint. This proves – once again – what passes for science in the denial community. None of you – especially you Dick – has an opinion which is based on evidence. It is just a bunch of nutjobs who more likely than not failed high school science all getting together and reinforcing each other’s twisted, ideologically-driven, wordviews.

    Since neither you, watts, or any of his idiot supporters have even bothered to read the paper before forming an opinion (what does that say about your credibility?), here are just a few snippets for your reading pleasure:

    “…..Large ice sheets thicken by the accumulation of snow on the surface yet little is known of processes at the base of the ice sheets. Radar images of ice sheets are characterized by isochronous internal layers associated with changes in dielectric properties of the ice. In the center of ice sheets these internal layers continue almost to the ice sheet bed (1). Away from the domes and ice divides, these layers disappear in the bottom 10-30% of the ice sheet. This homogeneous, echo-free basal layer can be hundreds of meters thick (2) and is considered to be the result of elevated basal temperatures, deformed ice, stagnant ice or increased layer roughness (3). The absence of reflectors in the base of the ice sheet makes decoding basal processes difficult…..”

    “….We interpret both populations of basal reflectors and the underlying packages of ice as the result of basal freeze-on. … Using this simple approach, the valley head freeze-on process has been persistent for a minimum of 30,000-60,000 year while the valley wall freeze-on has been persistent for a minimum of 10,000-20,000 year. The process of basal freeze-on has continued through the glacial interglacial transition. The processes are likely to have been persistent for significantly longer but older freeze-on ice may not be easily detected by radar…..”

    “….The thick packages of freeze-on ice surrounding Dome A illustrate that basal freeze-on modifies the fundamental structure of ice sheets, thickening the ice column from the base. The freeze-on rates in the Dome A region may be locally greater than the surface accumulation rates. The upwarping of internal layers over accretion sites implies active interaction between basal accretion and the entire ice sheet. The accretion-induced upwarping of basal ice will move old ice to a higher elevation in the ice sheet increasing the potential of preserving very old ice. Alternatively the widespread melt required to support the freeze-on process may have destroyed the ice containing the ancient paleoclimate records. Without inclusion of basal processes, simple models of ice sheet temperatures cannot accurately predict the location of the oldest ice (11)….”

    Since you, watts and his minions are scientifically illiterate, ideologically driven, pathological liars, let me interpret all that for you (as simply as possible).

    The weight of the ice sheets causes temperatures at the base of the sheet to rise. The resulting meltwater can move around and refreeze, causing distortions in the overlaying ice sheet. Because of this melting and freezing, locating very old ice can be problematic and it makes reconstruction of paleoclimatic records difficult. The authors hope to overcome these problems by analysing how the ice has moved by observing the buckling effects of the ice sheets. This will also assist in the understanding of ice sheet movements and changes and improve the relevant models.

    And if you – in any way – think that provides some sort of evidence that AGW is flawed, you are a bigger fool than I previously thought. The reason I didn’t link to it before – as per your idiotic statement “….I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did…” – was because it has virtually nothing to do with climate change. Although the authors are solidly in the ‘pro-AGW’ camp, and have said so in many of their other papers. I can provide links if you want. It’s part of the scientific process to read associated studies and papers so you know what the author’s views are, as well as to try and understand the relevance of the particular paper you are reading and how it fits into the science. I say this because you appear to have absolutely no understanding of this very basic concept.

    Despite claims in the deniersphere (and the ill-informed media), Antarctic ice is NOT growing from underneath – and only a complete moron would think that. Where do you think the water is coming from? Rain? It is simply meltwater of ice that is already there. The ice is not growing – it is just reshaping itself. But that is so obvious a child would understand it.

    I have said it before and I will say it again Dick. DO SOME READING OF REAL SCIENCE BEFORE PUTTING FINGERS TO KEYBOARD. AND STOP RELYING ON OTHERS TO GIVE YOU YOUR OPINION.

    Like

  10. Sure mandas, you with your “reading” and “analysis” think you have it all figured out, but all Watts and Wakefield have to do is spot a paper with the word “thickening” in it and they know they have AGW beat!

    Like

  11. “Those of you who think extreme events are because of AGW should read this:”

    Then link to Curry whose last link you used read like a New Age Healing Crystals advert.

    “The paper is behind a pay wall, but is reviewed in WUWT.”

    So you’re not willing to pay for access to a paper yet will use it anyway to prove your point?!?!?

    If you don’t know what the paper says, how can you say it “proves” your point?

    Answer: you can’t.

    Congenital liar.

    “Note Zwiers comment that AGW will produce (not might produce, but WILL produce):

    “…longer and more intense heat waves…””

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

    and, as you’ve been told before, the USA records of high temperature days are increasing as the years go by whilst the record cold temperature days are decreasing.

    Which does show more intense heat waves.

    And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures.

    Like

  12. Wakefield gets it all wrong again:

    So much for Brisbane 2010 flood because of AGW. No where near the hieghest (sic) on record.

    I’m not sure whether he is deliberately trying to mislead (always hard to tell when some one is both ignorant of facts and dishonest) or is just confused but the Brisbane flood which caused so much damage occurred in 2011. The data he links to only go up to October 2010.

    It is incredible that someone should be so consistently wrong.

    Like

  13. And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures

    Explain how to measure heat waves.

    Like

  14. What the science says is that under a warming climate, we can expect more extreme weather events more often. Longer, hotter heatwaves are one instance of more extreme weather.

    He’s just shortened the statement, appropriately, for an inexpert audience.

    No, he lied to make his point.

    He lied, because the data shows no increase in summer TMax anywhere on the planet since 1900.

    Like

  15. skip

    Of course Dick is going to ignore what I wrote. You don’t expect him to show a modicum of integrity do you? He comes from a dishonest profession, so it just stands to reason that he will continue to be dishonest for his whole life.

    Sort of like that link he provided at post #164 on the height of the Brisbane floods. It’s called cherry picking.

    Not only does the link not have the data for the latest flood in Brisbane, after the 1974 floods the government constructed a large damn – Wivenhoe – both to store water and to control future flood events. During the 2011 flood, the dam reached 200% of its flood storage capacity. Some estimates are that it took up to 5m off the maximum level of the flood, and without Wivenhoe the flood level would have been the highest in history – even surpassing the 1894 levels. The rainfall in the catchment certainly was the highest in history.

    So once again, Dick gets it wrong. I’m not sure about you, but if I was wrong with such monotonous regularity, I would start to question why the people who were giving me my opinions (watts et al) were such fools.

    Like

  16. Yeah but RW has already reached the nadir of credibility and he knows that. He long ago gave up trying to convince any of us with these dipshit tactics. He just posts to convince himself now. He thinks as long as he’s posting he’s winning in some sense.

    Like

  17. skip

    It seems from some previous posts that your powers of prophecy have been somewhat lacking in recent times with regard to Dick. Let me give it a go.

    He is about to link to a NOAA paper entitled:

    “Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave?” by Dole, Hoerling, Perlwitz, Eischeid,Pegion, Zhang, Quan, Xu, and Murraye.

    The paper has been accepted – but not yet published – by Geophysical Research Lettere. Despite this, wattsupmybutt and his minions are all over it like a cheap suit. As pper usual, they have seized on a press release and are conducting their usual standard of scientific excellence by drawing conclusions without having read the primary document. Here is the press release for those who are interested:

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

    So come on Dick. Make my day. What has Anthony told you to think today? Give us your (sorry – I mean Anthony’s) considered views on another paper that neither of you has read yet.

    Like

  18. But back on the topic. And while I am talking about Geophysical Research Letters, here is another disturbing paper just published on the subject of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet loss.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml

    I wonder how much more evidence needs to pile up? The deniers are looking more and more like John McCain standing up in the Senate giving a speech on how the repeal of DADT will cause the end of civilisation. They just don’t get it.

    Like

  19. I WIN!!!! My prediction came true!!!

    “…..Nice, you provided a paper that shows the Russian “heat wave” was indeed a natural event…..”

    No Dick. You have – once again – failed to either read or understand anything. I have NOT provided a paper which shows the Russian heatwave was a natural event, because I HAVEN’T PROVIDED A PAPER AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

    All I have done is provide a link to a press release for a paper that HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET!!!!!!!!!!

    Damn you are stupid. You failed to learn last time when you linked to the abstract of a conference paper for a conference that hasn’t yet been held, now you and the morons at wattsupmybutt are making claims about a paper that you haven’t read (no surprises there though), BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN PUBLISHED!!!!!!!!!

    Are you really as deluded as you make yourself out to be, or is it all woo?

    Mind you, I absolutely LOVE the link you provided at post #174 to try and claim support for your argument. I really hope everyone here has a look at it. I especially LOVE the first graph entitled “Yearly Tmax for July” (for Moscow). Please, please, please everyone go and check it out.

    Tell me Dick, what does the linear regression slope tell you? I know what it tells me!

    Of course, you will go with this absolutely unethical statement made by the author:
    “…Take 2010 out and the trend is flat, no over all increase in TMax. 2011 will very likely reset that increasing slope back to flat….”

    That’s the problem isn’t it Dick? It is patently obvious that there IS an increase in summer Tmax for Moscow, and the only way to ‘reset’ the trend is to remove incovenient data points. If that isn’t the worst case of downright unethical, fraudulant, lying, denialism, I am at a loss to know what is. Why not take 1950 out, and make the slope steeper?

    You people are deluded, pathological, lying, non-scientific, ideologically driven, insane, dangerous loons.

    Like

  20. “And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures”

    Whaaaa? This clearly went by me straight through to the keeper. Or perhaps it got choked off at the transfer station to longer-term memory.

    Anyway, if I read this right, that means that this analysis will fail to pick up large numbers of high temperature days if no single one of those days exceeds some number or other. ??? No?

    I have no idea whether anywhere in Canada is displaying such weather behaviour. But summers are surely hotter if there is a higher number of days with higher, but not necessarily record-breaking, temperatures. A recording and analysis framework that cannot pick up such a phenomenon is a bit lacking.

    (Seems a bit like saying you’re getting less rainfall even though the rain gauges record precipitation more often … because you’ve not had floods.)

    I must be wrong. Someone can explain what I’m missing.

    Like

  21. Thanks for that site Richard. Good fun to play with.

    There is something a bit peculiar about the Gulf of Mexico. The Key West SLR is almost flat, but the Texas gauges are something else again! 6+mm a year in a couple of places. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8771450

    The Philippines has some truly odd features as well. And an earthquake can seriously muck things up locally – a nice site for aimless wandering through unfamiliar data.

    I’ve now started a search for some other stuff I’ve seen in passing but not saved. (Total water stored or otherwise diverted before reaching its historical ocean outfall.)

    Like

  22. “He lied, because the data shows no increase in summer TMax anywhere on the planet since 1900.”

    But the summer Tmax you use won’t show a statistically proven trend of increased heatwave count and deeper heatwaves.

    And this data:

    shows that record temperature count in the USA is increasing. This is somewhere on the planet and is after 1900.

    Seems like you’re lying.

    Then again, we could have guessed: you typed something. You and the truth have at best a theoretical knowledge of each other.

    Like

  23. The link I gave adelady/skip was one I’d given Dick before on another beck thread.

    He knew that the USA shows more temperature records over the last few years, but keeps saying there IS NO DATA that shows heatwaves increasing on the planet.

    Since he states what he KNOWS to be false, this is called “lying”.

    Like

  24. So it STILL ISN’T PUBLISHED.

    Funny how you CANNOT accept that anything you say is wrong in any way whatsoever.

    Denialism depends on this.

    The Farce is strong with this one.

    PS since there are papers from earlier that say that heatwaves ARE having a deleterious effect on the runssian climate, why do you believe this one?

    Since you haven’t even read it (nor have any of your coworkers at WTFUWT), how do you know that it shows what you say?← Hump Day Hilarity
    Congress looking to put the kibosh on GHG related taxes →
    NOAA finds”climate change” blameless in 2010 Russian heat wave
    Posted on March 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    We mentioned this previously on WUWT, now it is officially peer reviewed and accepted. Maybe this will be a lesson to those in the MSM and eco blogland who immediately jump on every newsworthy weather event, and with no supporting evidence, attribute it to “global warming”, “climate change”, or “climate disruption” or whatever the marketing phrase of the day is. The factual science is in, and the answer that we knew all along? To paraphrase James Carville; It’s the weather, not climate, stupid.
    NOAA: Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

    Source here

    Daily Moscow temperature record from November 1 2009 to October 31 2010. Red and blue shaded areas represent departures from the long-term average (smooth curve) in Moscow. Temperatures significantly above the long-term average scorched Moscow for much of July and August. NOAA credit. – click to enlarge

    The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.

    The research team drew from scientific observations and computer climate models to evaluate the possible roles of natural and human-caused climate influences on the severity of the heat wave. The study was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

    “Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia,”

    doesn’t say “CO2 blameless”. It says that knowing CO2 levels were higher would not have helped anticipate such a deep heat wave.

    But it happened.

    And one thing that helped it become so deep was the rise in global temperatures.

    Or do things that are warmer not warm other things nearby in Dickworld?

    Like

  25. adelady, keep in mind that stations along active tectonic zones alters the rate of rise (or fall). For example, the south coast of the UK is sinking, while Scotland is rising, as the European Plate moves north. As Pacific islands get older, they lose land, and it appears they are “sinking” or sea level is rising. Note the Hawaiian chain up to Midway.

    Thus you need to choose stations on stable cratons to get an accurate picture of what is happening to sea level.

    Like

  26. It seems RW really shot himself in the foot at 144 with “breaking records is an accounting issue, nothing to d with trends in the weather.”

    Like

  27. My two cents:

    You need to treat the trolls here like a kid with a tantrum: put them in time out. They are achieving at least one of their goals, which is to take the time and energy of good people to try to get them to think and pay attention.

    My mother had a stroke, and when she is particularly impossible, we just remove all stimulus and she quiets down, just like a two-year-old. You are all providing exactly what RW et al. want, which is attention.

    In addition, this conversation is boring because the people who actually know what they are talking about are not really talking to each other, which is what needs to happen.

    I know there will be a scream of “censorship” and if the blog owner doesn’t want to edit this stuff out after it’s gone on far too long, the rest of you can help by ignoring the staggeringly off-base and irrelevant material, particularly when it has been demonstrated over and over again that the poster is not interested in learning, but in “proving” that they are right.

    Insulting these people provides them with even better ammunition – they can go over to their favorite places and say “look, I got insulted, they are unclean and nasty.”

    Please have a conversation with each other, not with trolls.

    Like

  28. Susan, I know. For myself, I’m pretty sure that Richard doesn’t “lie”. He’s kidding himself – but he thinks he can persuade others in the same way he was convinced.

    If that fails, he has the “they’re all brainwashed” explanation. And then back to step one.

    And he never, never realises that this group, far more than the ones he relies on, would grasp like starving hordes at a food truck onto anything competent showing a scientific basis for more positive views about our circumstances.

    Shame really.

    Like

  29. For myself, I’m pretty sure that Richard doesn’t “lie”.

    Expect a rant about that from Ian, but thanks anyway.

    I used to accept AGW. I expected those “scientists” were doing their jobs properly. That all changed the day it was proclaimed that the science was settled, no questioning allowed.

    Like

  30. Lo, T.-T. and Hsu, H.-H. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters 11: 210-215.

    “…do not support the scenario that the emerging influence of the AO-like pattern in the 1980s can be attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.”

    Reviewed here:
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N10/C1.php

    Like

  31. No change in past 115 years of Arctic temps, 1920s warmer:

    Opel, T., Fritzsche, D., Meyer, H., Schutt, R., Weiler, K., Ruth, U., Wilhelms, F. and Fischer, H. 2009. 115 year ice-core data from Akademii Nauk ice cap, Severnaya Zemlya: high-resolution record of Eurasian Arctic climate change. Journal of Glaciology 55: 21-31.

    Reviewed here: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N10/C2.php

    Like

  32. Dick

    You used to be a fireman I believe? I used to trust them once upon a time, but now I know that they are all just disengeuous liars sucking at the government teat.

    They sit around in their ‘station houses’ all day drinking beer and watching porn. Occasionally, they realise that if they don’t actually demonstrate that they are useful (you know, by putting out a fire), then the government may cut their funding.

    We all know that improved regulations means that fires just don’t start by accident anymore. So in order to ensure their funding continues, firemen go around and start fires so they have something to do. They are all nothing more than lying arsonists.

    I don’t trust a single one of them.

    Like

  33. RW,
    Once again you are completely off topic. You completely failed to respond to Mandas who unlike you or Watts read the only on-topic paper you have referenced in this thread (note that ice sheets are not sea ice.)

    Your reply to me re: GRACE was also a complete non-response. Assuming for a moment that GRACE did have problems, the question was whether your linked paper indicated any differences from the understanding of Antarctica that we have gained from GRACE or other sources. In other words you need to see what the general understanding of mass balance is for the area of the Antarctica that you referenced.

    Like

  34. Dick

    You are a moron.

    How many times do we have to tell you to READ A PAPER BEFORE COMMENTING? You have – once again – relied on the opinion of someone else who also appears not to have read the paper. And – once again – you both have got it wrong. When will you EVER learn?

    At post #194 you linked to this paper, supposedly reviewed at CO2science:

    Click to access Ope2008c.pdf

    And you – and they – have come to the earth shatteringly stupid and wrong conclusion that there has been “….No change in past 115 years of Arctic temps, 1920s warmer….”

    Of course, if you actually READ the paper you would have realised that is NOT the case, and cannot be concluded by even the most cursory reading. Why don’t you try it – just for once??!!

    Once again – since you haven’t read the paper – let me do it for you. Here are some quotes and explanations:

    “…In this paper, we present high-resolution data of stable water isotopes, melt-layer content as well as major ions from the uppermost 57m of this core, covering the time period 1883–1999….”

    So firstly, the record stops at 1999. It does not cover the most recent decade. You know – the one which has been described as the ‘hottest on record’. So you CANNOT make the claim that the 1920s were warmer than today, because ‘today’ is not in the data. Next….

    “….The AN _18O time series shows a distinct increasing trend with pronounced changes since 1883. Starting from a low level of about –22%, _18O values increased to values of –18% at about 1920 and 1940. From 1950 to the 1980s they oscillated about –20% and rose again afterwards. Besides the strong warming in the first two decades of the 20th century the most prominent feature of the AN _18O time series is the double-peaked SAT maximum between 1920 and 1940. These values were not reached again until the end of our record in the 1990s. This agrees with the instrumental sub-Arctic SAT data (Fig. 5). The double-peak structure of this SAT maximum seems to be a specific feature of the Eurasian Arctic, since the 1920 peak is not visible in other SAT time series, e.g. Bodø or Akureyri. Based on instrumental data, Przybylak (2007) stated for the whole Arctic the decade 1936–1945 and the year 1938 to be the warmest in the 20th century. Only the period 1995–2005 and the year 2005, respectively, reached and exceeded these values….”

    So the 1920 peak is only evident in this dataset – and is not evident in other samples from different locations. That suggests very strongly that the 1920 peak is a local phenomenon. The authors agree:

    “….We present the correlations for some of these SAT time series in Table 2. The best accordance between AN _18O and instrumental SAT time series (1883–1998) was found for Vardø (r5yrm ¼ 0.62) and Arkhangelsk (r5yrm ¼ 0.61) stations, located at the Barents Sea and White Sea coasts, respectively (Fig. 5, data from Climate Research Unit (CRU) Norwich, Brohan and others, 2006). Compared with Golomyanny, their SATs are not (or in the case of Arkhangelsk to a much lesser extent) influenced by the occurrence of sea ice. The good correlations and similarities of the time series reveal again the influence of the Atlantic
    Ocean via the Barents Sea and Kara Sea on SZ region SAT conditions…”

    What is FAR more interesting, is that the authors very specifically state that 1938 was the warmest peak, but that “…only the period 1995-2005 and the year 2005, respectively, REACHED AND EXCEEDED THESE VALUES…..”

    Do you get that Dick? The authors state – based on the data they have and the instrumental record – that THE CURRENT PERIOD IS THE WARMEST SINCE 1883.

    There is a lot more to this paper, but I honestly am getting fed up with having to do your research and analysis for you. It takes a special sort of person to continually fail to do even the most basic research before forming an opinion on a subject. You are one such special person Dick. In the past few days, I have provided a relatively modest reading of several papers that you have linked to, but failed to read before doing so. In each and every occasion your conclusions have been shown to be completely wrong, and driven by your political ideology rather than evidence. If you had even a scintilla of integrity you would have admitted your mistake and learned from it. But not you. You never even acknowledged that you may have got it wrong, before moving on to the next link and the next opinion that you trawled from a denier website.

    Why do you keep trusting these people, when they lead you astray EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why are you completely incapable of learning from your mistakes? Are you really so deluded?

    Like

  35. Richard,

    More days with Tmax above a threshold would be a type of “temperature record”. If “breaking records has nothing to do with trends in weather”, then, by your definition, your Tmax analysis is “an accounting issue”.

    Like

  36. Greengold, you are not understanding. Count of the number of days above a threshold temp, considered a heat wave, is a physical reality. Days hitting a certain temperature are only recordsetting by definision dependant upon when you start records. They are related, but different measurements. Eventually, all temps will be filled and no more record temps will be seen (in 3000 years). Thus if we had records going back 3000 years we would have no record breaking temps. But we would still be able to count the number of days in each year above a certain temp and see a trend. Because we have only 100 years of records, we can have a drop in the number of heat waves while at the same time have recordsetting days.

    Write a program, and you can simulate that.

    Like

  37. They are all nothing more than lying arsonists.

    Tell me where you live so I can email this comment to the hall near you. Then when you need them, they will ignore you. You are one ignorant prick and not worth my commenting on anything you post.

    Actually, I will get the email of all Au departments and pass your comment on.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s