The East Liberian Sea is near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea, which is known as the western Arctic. The opposite side of the Arctic near Greenland and Svalbard is known as the Eastern Arctic, and that is where ice is lost flowing out the Fram Strait. The designation has nothing to do with east or west longitude.
NSIDC defines the western Arctic in their latest sea ice news.
Sea ice retreat was later and not as extreme relative to recent years in the western Arctic (i.e., the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas)
Imagine safety experts, automotive engineers, trauma doctors, etc. discussing exactly what will happen to the passengers of a given model of car traveling at a very high rate of speed when it hits a bridge support. There would no doubt be some minor disagreements — will the driver die because his head hits the windshield and explodes, or because he’s crushed by the collapsing passenger compartment? Will the passengers in the back seats necessarily die, or will some of them “merely” be very seriously injured?
Then along comes a denier-type who says, “See? They can’t even agree on what will happen, so let’s go driving at 100MPH with the lights off!” Of course, they never mention that not a single one of the experts ever suggested that it would be a good idea to do something like that…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/a-few-of-obamas-flat-earthers/
I hope you don´t have a driving licence.
Or a car!
Avery Harden – That’s a strawman argument.
Did you notice that the latest IPCC report backed-off on their prior predictions that tornadoes and hurricanes would be worse in the future due to AGW? It appears that their wild 100 mph predictions of the past had to be slowed down, lest risk their reputation train crashing and burning.
John, I think you’ll find that the normal process of scientific research involves refining our understanding. You manage to present it as a negative, for some odd reason.
I suppose if your consultant told you that you had cancer and then changed his mind you’d be equally critical? Not…..
at what point in time are we to believe they actually have it right?
My consultant wouldn’t have told me the science was settled.
First, get back to the original theory–then try to prove it to be correct. It is not our job to prove it to be wrong, it is your job to prove it to be correct and thus far the science has not been able to do that. The notion that we have any true scientific understanding of climate change with certainty of the causative factors at any specific moment is thus far just a speculative theory. BTW, I am still trying to figure out why the effect precedes the cause on the original temp/CO2 graph. Got an answer?
Actually Ed, they are not supposed try and prover their hypothesis as much as to try and disprove it. Only through trying to find fault with their conjecture can they truly show it is robust. And this is where the alarmists fail the rest of us most miserably. They should be embracing skeptics as their greatest allies, but opt instead for confirmation of their beliefs through incestuous synchronized head nodding.
Until they bring everyone to the table, it is a conspiracy, and it is fraud.
It is interesting why Popular Science stopped accepting comments.
“Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study’s findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. Much in the same way that watching uncivil politicians argue on television causes polarization among individuals, impolite and incensed blog comments can polarize online users based on value predispositions utilized as heuristics when processing the blog’s information. The effects of online, user-to-user incivility on perceptions towards emerging technologies may prove especially troublesome for science experts and communicators that rely on public acceptance of their information. The effects of online incivility may be even stronger for more well-known and contentious science issues such as the evolution vs. intelligent design debate or climate change. Future research may explore these issues to gain a better understanding of the formation of risk perceptions for controversial political or science topics in the context of user-generated online comments.”
Thus it appears that any kind incivility in a comments can, to some extent at least negate in the readers’ minds the validity of the science being reported. Food for thought
ROFL – last night you were calling me a paid liar from the tobacco industry.
The real reason was because skeptics were kicking the alarmist’s butts
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments?src=SOC&dom=tw
Steven, you don’t help your case by such labels. There are very few ‘alarmists’ – but regrettably rather more ‘sceptics’. Name calling doesn’t really help to find common ground does it? Or are you not really interested in common ground? Your tone and content here rather suggests something more akin to the recent behaviour of the Tea Party Republicans…. 🙂
or greenpiece, OWS, hysterical bedwetters, throwing blood on people, rioting burning cars and trashing businesses, painting graffiti, burning houses, running around naked, ……
I didn’t hear, were those who believe in limited government caught Borking Obamacare? Filibusters have been around since 1837. Both sides use them
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder
Yes. They mentioned an assault on “scientific doctrine”.
What more do you need to know. Doctrines belong to belief systems. Not to science. Maybe they were in reality acknowledging that?
Was it part of Charles Taylor’s plan to conquer the world?
Your error is that focusing on the daily noise ignores the underlying signal. Much like focusing on individual waves hides the change in tide at the beach. Climate science is interested in the tide. The waves are the weather and the concern of meteorologists.
How long of a trend is needed? 17 years?
Hansen only needed 9 in 1988. Well, 9 years and coconspirators shutting off the A/C in the hearing room.
“What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. … So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.”
Of course they also selected June 23rd for his stagecraft, historically the hottest day of the year in Washington DC.
Step right up! 😆
I suggest you understand the science. The last decade was still warmer than the previous one so what trend are you looking at? The warming trend has been running for decades. If you want to show a cooling trend then we need to see one sustained over decades. Don’t hold your breath (although it would reduce CO2 emissions just a touch…..)
Hansen predicted 0.4C warming from 2000 to 2010. Apparently he doesn’t understand the science.
You may be interested in this. The oldest temperature record in the world – CET.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Down by 0.7 degrees C since 2000
Winter temperatures in the same period are down by 1 degree centigrade. More than all the rise in the warming since the LIA.
Data, you know. Observed, real, data. England is cooling rapidly, and all the signs are that we will have a very hard winter, the sixth in a row. That hasn’t happened in a hundred years. And still our politicians are trying to prevent warming, at huge cost to us and to the economy. The reality is that such behaviour, which is so antithetical to the reality all around is, is unbalanced.
IPCC represents dogma in search of data to justify it.
Science is data in search of a theory to explain it.
No, the IPCC represents the research of a large number of independent scientists. Rather too many of the sceptics come from the “dogma in search of data” camp.
So, you were almost there, just 180 degrees out…. 🙂
It is impossible to be an independent scientist in the US.
Obama has made it 100% clear that he does not want any skeptics working for the US government.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
[Of the IPCC panel] “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton
Former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center
“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,…We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
“The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” UK Botanist and ex-BBC broadcaster Dr. David Bellamy (who used to believe in man-made climate fears.)
“Much like focusing on individual waves hides the change in tide at the beach.”
Shorelines, like every feature on the face of the Earth, are temporary. The rule of climate IS change. 4.5 billion years of massive changes and suddenly it’s our fault? Prove it.
Not one paper exists refuting natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes. Before we can blame humanity, we must first rule out mother nature.
Get busy.
Clearly you’re not prepared to let the research get in the way of your fixed opinions are you? Platitudes are no substitute for proper understanding.
Have you ruled out natural variability? If not, get busy.
Ah yes. A certain Professor Jones, allied to “the cause”, noted ruefully that we were not able to model the natural variability of climate. That, of course, begs another question. I don’t think I need to elucidate it, do I?
IPPC isn’t focused on waves or tides. It’s not even at the beach. It’s more like the travel agent with brochures of beaches trying to rent oceanside property in the desert.
So Steven are you prepared to back up your claim that the E Siberian is in the western arctic despite being east of the prime meridian?
Stop, please – I am going to split my gut laughing if you keep this up
“Sea ice retreat was later and not as extreme relative to recent years in the western Arctic (i.e., the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas)”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/4292/
Well that’s fine the nsdic is choosing to define western arctic that way. My definition is not unreasonable either, and since we are talking about fram transport its worth noting that the E Siberian sea is where the ice starts to come under the influence of the transpolar drift as-well as the Beaufort gyre!
Western Arctic is near the Pacific. Eastern Arctic is near the Atlantic, and more importantly the Fram Strait. Western Arctic ice survives the winter, but most Eastern Arctic ice doesn’t. That is why I keep emphasizing the importance of the increase in western Arctic ice.
You’re killing me. Stick to one topic.
cheesetower –
The definition of East Siberian Sea is not yours to make.
Large sailboat TARA exits the Northwest Passage with help of icebreaker for 50 miles.
It was in this atmosphere, floating between magic and wonder, that the Canadian Coast Guard’s Louis S. St-Laurent contacted us by radio. It was a short formal exchange in English and we learned that the icebreaker had received orders to guide us. Our captain, Loïc Vallette complied and Tara navigated into the wake of the red-hulled giant with a maple leaf on its white funnel.
At a safe distance of eight hundred yards we progressed behind our guide. For fifty miles on the starboard side we had the Brodeur Peninsula and snowy mountains. We made our way through a water channel opened up by the Coast Guard. Mile after mile and we found ourselves easily crossing the Northwest Passage behind this protective escort. Without this help, we would have been at the limit of energy and fatigue, and perhaps more if we had made our own way between these plaques which made a thick white line on the horizon.
I am Sam
I am Sam
Sam I am
That Sam-I-am
That Sam-I-am!
I do not like
that Sam-I-am
Do you like
green eggs and ham
I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like
green eggs and ham.
ROFLMAO!!!
Another day another mindless troll. I think they send their robots here to test them before cutting them loose on the rest of the internet.
Wouldn’t you say the person trolling is also the person intending to provoke a negative reaction, i.e the person that is not the recipient of the insult ‘moron’.
I warned you on the other thread, but you insisted on this …. ROFL
I don’t think I’ve ever insulted you Steven. But its almost impossible to have a rational discussion with you because all you ever do is change the subject constantly and call people morons.
Ah, but only if you refuse to contemplate the science. There’s a more compelling argument that closed-minded scepticism is the worse kind of trolling.
“Western Arctic is near the Pacific. Eastern Arctic is near the Atlantic, and more importantly the Fram Strait. Western Arctic ice survives the winter, but most Eastern Arctic ice doesn’t. That is why I keep emphasizing the importance of the increase in western Arctic ice.”
Depends on the definition of western. Here is a paper from geophysics letters that goes with my definition, which to be honest is the most intuitevly obvious.
http://ourocean.jpl.nasa.gov/publication/GRL_seaice2006GL027198.pdf
Yes but by the time you get to the chuckini and E siberian seas the ice is under the influence of the transpolar drift as-well as the Beaufort gyre, ergo some of that ice is fram bound!
Ice can’t travel 2,000 miles during a single winter.
Who says it has to happen in a single winter. If the ice exits the E siberian sea under the influence of the transpolar drift it is going to leave the arctic sooner or later.
That ice will thicken over the winter, and protect the younger ice around it from melting next summer. It is a positive feedback which will lead to a further increase if next summer is cold again.
See this is what I mean. You constantly change the subject! Thickening ice over the winter doesn’t matter if its eventually exiting the fram; which like I say by the time you get to the E siberian some ice will complete the gyre but some will come under the influence of the transpolar drift ready to exit. And my original point, was that 2005 had a similar ice distribution to now, with similar ice in the gyre and certainly older ice and despite that 2 years later 2007 happened. A little bit of extra 2nd year ice in the E siberian is not going to make all that much difference.
All Arctic sea ice eventually melts in situ or exits out the Fram Strait. That is why the ice never gets much older than about five years.
In the CAA you can get ice significantly older than 5 years. And 5+ year ice used to form a significant minority of the total ice content; although not really anymore. You keep on making the point, that the ice being in the pacific sector is going to cause the trend to reverse and go up. To an extent thats true in the sense that ice in the gyre does mature and thicken. However, 1 year of good weather conditions is not enough to make up for a decade of severe melt. No one is arguing that a few more years like 2013 would really cause us to go upwards, but then again one 2007 will send us right back to below 2012. And 2005 demonstrates that even a good ice distribution can be overcome in just a couple of years.
If the technology we are using today….was invented just 10 years sooner
…you would be hysterical about a completely different “normal”
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/screenhunter_707-apr-25-06-06.jpg?w=640&h=491&h=491
well thank goodness you finally cleared that up…
…it was wind and had nothing to do with global warming
Circles are very tricky things.
stop following me………..
ROTFLMAO
and for a liberal friends….that’s a joke!
Latitude you seem obsessed with the definition of ‘average’. For the last time, it has nothing to do with the technology. 30 year averages are a standard in climatology, and they are used in global temperatures aswell. By your logic we might aswell use the average of the entire age of the universe as ‘normal’ and end up with a ridiculously high figure from when the earth was part of the protostar or the primordial universe.
30 year averages have only come into high fashion of late, as they were convenient for pedaling hysteria. When I was a climatology student thirty years ago, we did not use them as a benchmark for anything other than some ocean cycles.
We are in an interglacial, and the climate is supposed to warm right up until it ends. Ask a geologist.
There are no normals in weather or climate, just averages over selected time periods. And 30 years is just one selection, that in the terms of Earth’s climatological history is simply noise. Like you. 😆
If the technology to measure temps or sea ice was invented just 50 years sooner…
…you would be hysterical about a completely different normal
averages, trends, whatever…don’t mean squat if it’s not compared to normal
@Atowermadeofcheese
No, dimwit, you are the one obsessed with the definition of “average” … Latitude’s point (and rightfully so), is, “what is normal?” … there is no such thing as “normal”
If you really want to consider what is normal, then ice-age is normal. Are you prepared to become “normal” ?
Thank god it’s not a Mobius strip yet!
If Cheese is really the best that the Warmists can come up with, they might as well give up now!
They are not intelligent enough to know when they have been whipped. Belief in AGW declines with each new polling, and yet they think it is a ‘messaging’ problem. 😆
Just google translate this crap into klingon. Its just verbal silage. Stop wasting time with ad homenin attacks and actually discuss the climate. Otherwise omegle.com might be more suited to you. There are plenty of keyboard warriors there that would appreciate your satirical posting style, plus some of them might even insult you back.
Where is that paper refuting natural variability? Given up? 😆
Lightweight.
Gator, AGW also declines with each new trolling .. 😉
Yes and using the earths climatologist history as an average would be ridiculous. The arctic ocean wouldn’t even exist for a start if you are using geological time scales. More than anything the 30 year average is useful to see long term trends.
Keep digging! You may get a lifetime award.
“Where is that paper refuting natural variability? Given up? :lol:”
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, besides I already gave it to you. Read it and come back to me with a scientifically and grammatically coherent criticism.
“Keep digging! You may get a lifetime award.”
This one is going into Klingon: “mol HaghmoHwI’ pol! yIn poH van’a’ chaq poHlIj.” . Take it to omegle in future.
What you have me was a paper about a model, and then you could not figure out a simple sentence. 😆
As I showed you, they cannot accurately model our climate as they have a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of about 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.
Put down the bong, it is effecting your memory.
wow….it’s really easy to derail one of these guys
Qo’ jIHvaD tIch Dap.
ROFLMAO!!!
30 years is a ‘long term trend’ for kiddies maybe. 😆
SoH je.
All insults will have auto-generated replies in Klingon. if you have something worthwhile saying, then say it. To me this is evidence you don’t have a point to make.
Kiddies love playing dress up! 😆
And kiddies think 30 years is a long time.
ROFLMAO!!!
Did they use a 30 year trend when they starting yelling doom in 1988 or was it more like 9 years?
Come on gofer, 30 years was an ‘inconvenient truth’ in 1988. 😉
You’ve just made my point for me.
If you’ve really nothing better to do than sit around waiting for somebody to reply to one of your comments, you have my utmost sympathy.
I just hope you get out and get a life.
Klingon, FFS. Dear me.
You know…I thought this guy was some kid all along
pagh batlhlIj Daghaj
yep
Hey Atowermadeofcheese. Mine’s bigger than yours. And my proof is because I said so.
What you have me was a paper about a model, and then you could not figure out a simple sentence. 😆
As I showed you, they cannot accurately model our climate as they have a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of about 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.
Put down the bong, it is effecting your memory.
Because your sentence made no sense. You had two (rarely used) subjects attached to one verb (incorrectly conjugated). Such a sentence is grammatically incoherent and extremely ambiguous. It wasn’t even obvious it was a question.
Anyway, have you read the paper? Do you have a legitimate criticism of it? Perhaps you should publish a paper of your own refuting it under the title ‘lol its a model’ and see how far you get.
The sentence was simple, like you. The paper was about a meaningless model.
Just how stupid are you?
Are you saying your sentence was grammatically correct? You won’t get anywhere with that line of thought. Come back to me when you have written a paper of your own refuting the one I sent you. Have you even read it yet?
holding court…..
One cannot model that which one does not understand.
My grammar is not the issue.
Deal with it kiddie. You lost the argument. 😆
Being the “grammar police” is a sign of desperation, so is the “write a paper refuting it” line.
Seriously? This asshat is still having a problem with “One cannot model that which one does not understand” ? … Seriously? … and he/it wishes to engage in debate at an intellectual level? … Seriously?
Wow, just wow…
Plz tone it down
“One cannot model that which one does not understand.” Well now you have your subjects matched with your verbs. And you have made it clear that it is a statement not a question! Compare with what you said before, and see the difference. And ofc you would say I ‘lost’ the argument – think what you like. Meanwhile you could be writing a paper of your own to refute the one I sent you, or at least reading the one I sent you.
I already refuted it. How stupid are you?
Being the “grammar police” is a sign of desperation, so is the “write a paper refuting it” line. I am not being the ‘grammar police’, my comment was on a sentence so incoherent it was impossible to even tell if it was a question or not. My grammar is hardly perfect, but it is at least understandable. Since you have not provided any useful criticisms to the paper I sent beyond ‘its a model therefore its completely wrong’ then its a reasonable retort. Of course omegle style insults are not a sign of desperation right?
Lat understood it. Should I post it and see if you are the only dummy who cannot?
From AR4, 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
How does one model that which one does not understand?
OK folks, let’s see if anyone else is as thick a abrainmadeofcheese. 😆
obxiously nog weel ak ull…..
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png
Bad Klingon grammar, comment rejected. 😉
I think we found skippy…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jMBIBJtv-g
it was my lame attempt at incoherent…
The models are a total fail……