Drewski And Berynn Think 2013 Summer Ice Extent Was Lower Than 2007

Posted on March 16, 2014 by Tony Heller

We have a comedy routine going on another thread.

ScreenHunter_674 Mar. 16 00.29

March 16, 2014 at 6:28 am

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Drewski And Berynn Think 2013 Summer Ice Extent Was Lower Than 2007

  1. Drewski says:
    March 16, 2014 at 6:57 am

    Before any of you sCeptics make a comment, go to Steve’s graph on that blog and see for yourself in which year Steve has placed the lowest amount of Arctic ice area.

    Reply
  2. Streetcred says:
    March 16, 2014 at 7:14 am

    Yeah, who’s a ‘septic’ now, drewski … dingbat !

    Reply
  3. Charles Nelson says:
    March 16, 2014 at 7:54 am

    Warmists are actually quite thick.

    Reply
  4. Snow White says:
    March 16, 2014 at 10:40 am

    It seems I was too late to join the comedy routine over there. Maybe I can add to the hilarity here instead?

    First look at your own graph Steve, then look at some of mine:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes/

    Then repeat with a straight face “Arctic Ice Area Similar To Early 1960?s And 1970?s”

    Reply
    • Anto says:
      March 16, 2014 at 11:35 am

      Snow White,

      I’ve posted a number of comments at your site in relation to this post. Now awaiting moderation. Let’s see what you do with them.

      Reply
    • Morgan says:
      March 16, 2014 at 11:35 am

      Who cares? The earth has two poles. Global sea ice has never been higher.

      Now, why don’t you give us the latest fabrication on why global warming is causing an increase in Antarctic sea ice and a decrease in Arctic sea ice. I need a laugh.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        March 16, 2014 at 12:15 pm

        About the decrease in Arctic sea ice and increasing sea ice extent in the Antarctic called the Bipolar Seesaw. Everyone is ignoring the fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

        From the paper:

        Page 2
        We propose that the interval between the “terminal” oscillation of the bipolar seesaw, preceding an interglacial, and its first major reactivation represents a period of minimum extension of ice sheets away from coastlines. Given that the response of the MOC and the strength of the bipolar seesaw may be modulated by different boundary conditions (e.g. Green et al., 2010; Margari et al., 2010), it is conceivable that a non-active bipolar seesaw might not necessarily indicate interglacial conditions (false-negative) or that an active bipolar seesaw might not indicate glacial conditions (false-positive). With respect to the former, however, a terminal oscillation of the bipolar seesaw appears to be a characteristic feature of deglaciation (e.g. Cheng et al., 2009; Ganopolski and Roche, 2009; Barker et al., 2011). With respect to the latter, freshwater fluxes can occur within an interglacial, but are unlikely to lead to a major disruption of the MOC when the system is in a “warm circulation mode” (Ganopolski and Rahmstorf, 2001); thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place. ….

        page 3
        The reactivation of the bipolar seesaw provides a minimum age or a “terminus ante quem” for glacial inception, which clearly had occurred sometime before. Based on the MIS 5e–5d transition, we propose to apply the same response phasing of 3 kyr to infer the onset of glacial inception at previous interglacial-to-glacial transitions….

        ….the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

        So the Reactivation of the Bipolar seasaw, melting of ice in the Arctic and increase in ice in the Antarctic says the transition to glaciation has already taken place.

        This is not a paper to give one the warm fuzzies especially when you consider the Little Ice Age was right on time (half Precession) for the start of glaciation and the modern warm period is probably thanks to the Modern grand solar maximum which has just ended.

        SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia by Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyl ? Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit)

        The first paper also gives the solar insolation values (21 June insolation 65? N ) for the start of other glaciations:

        MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m?2,
        MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m?2,
        MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m?2,
        MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m?2,
        MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m?2,

        The current value is 479 W m?2, not high enough to guarantee the earth will not head into glaciation. If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct, the ONLY thing keeping us out of the next ice age is Carbon Dioxide. Also we are not out of the woods by a long shot . The Milankovitch Cycle low point will continue for thousands of years.

        WORSE the Eemian, the interglacial just before the present one had two thermal pulses (warm periods) before the Big Drop. Earth is now exiting that second thermal pulse….

        And the warmists want to strip the earth of what ever amount of warming that elevated CO2 might provide. Stark raving NUTS!

        Reply
        • Dmh says:
          March 16, 2014 at 1:47 pm

          Gail, I agree with the essential part of your analysis but in the Fig.2 of the paper
          Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
          it’s clear that the return of the bipolar seesaw of the last interglacial before the Holocene happened 3k years *after* the glacial inception and the previous manifestation occurred at the beginning of the interglacial, some 20k years before.
          Therefore, I think that what they refer as “bipolar seesaw” is not the smaller climate oscillations of NP and SP temperatures, within the interglacials, but the first manifestation of the Dansgaard/Oeschger events after the glacial period starts.

          This is different from the usual concept as we see in this paper of Svensmark,
          The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
          In Fig.1 we see that the bipolar seesaw, that Svensmark calls “Antarctic anomaly”, has been “reactivated” after the present interglacial maximum some 4,000 years before present (BP).
          In addition, the frequency of the north-south oscillations has been increasing and the last one, as this post of Steve indicates,
          http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/trading-places/
          happened just a few decades ago.
          I’m not sure if the 2nd (more usual) concept, that I believe is what you’re using, can be applied to the analysis of Tzedakis et.al..

    • John B., M.D. says:
      March 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm

      Snow White, do you believe history started in 1979?

      12% increase in Arctic ice from 1965-1975: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QAFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5oIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1282,407671
      and http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/169335148.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Mar%202,%201975&author=&pub=Chicago%20Tribune&edition=&startpage=&desc=B-r-r-r-r:%20New%20Ice%20Age%20on%20way%20soon?

      Arctic ice anomaly 1953-1977 (see Figure 5 on p.6/585): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      1990 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
      Figure 7.20 (p. 224) – polar ice coverage before satellite era

      These are data that show “Arctic Ice Area Similar To Early 1960?s And 1970?s.” WHere is your data?

      Reply
      • Andy Oz says:
        March 17, 2014 at 7:40 am

        Hi John, That paper – Arctic Ice Anomaly 1953-1977 – Walsh & Johnson
        is an excellent paper and shows how alarmists have no idea what they are squawking about.
        Fg 5B (Ice extent) and Fig 6 (Arctic Temps) make it obvious what the symptoms are.

        Reply
  5. Edmonton Al says:
    March 16, 2014 at 10:59 am

    For those people who do not experience winter ice on seas and lakes, let me mention this.
    Nearly every spring around here [northern Alberta] the ice on the lakes begins to melt. A satellite pic would show [dependingon the date] maybe 90% ice cover on the lake. Very often, a big wind will come up and within a day or two, the ice gets blown to the windward side and piles up on the shore [often damaging cabins]. NOW, take a ‘sat’ reading of the ice coverage. It goes down to maybe 10%.
    From 90% to 10% in 1 or 2 days. I suppose the “warmists” will blame that on CO2
    Good grief , Charlie Brown.
    Then tell me the Arctic Ocean does have similiar effects due to wind.
    Look at the range of summer lows, that could well be largely explained by wind, not global warming.
    IMHO.

    Reply
  6. Edmonton Al says:
    March 16, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Correction: Arctic Ocean does NOT have

    Reply
  7. Gail Combs says:
    March 16, 2014 at 11:24 am

    Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision

    Note that many of the “Arctic Stations are Russian.

    This is what the Russians have to say:

    On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

    The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

    On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

    IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

    The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

    Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
    (bottom of page) http://en.ria.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

    Reply
    • Anto says:
      March 16, 2014 at 12:22 pm

      The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

      Convenient. If it doesn’t show warming, it must be unreliable, so throw it out. If what’s left doesn’t show enough warming, adjust it until it does. Criminals.

      Reply
    • rw says:
      March 17, 2014 at 11:15 am

      People should also check out the Finnish TV show on Climategate (it it’s still out on YouTube). It includes a good discussion of temperature stations in Siberia.

      Reply
  8. Gail Combs says:
    March 16, 2014 at 11:32 am

    It is not only temperature (and CO2 measurements) that is ‘Adjusted’ Arctic Sea Ice adjustments (Graphs)

    I thought … why not graph the difference between version 1 and version 2 for 2013.

    Red = Version 2 Lower Than Version 1

    Blue = Version 2 Higher Than Version 1

    Guess what the following graph shows? It makes the minimum dramatically lower (400,000 sq km lower) and the maximum higher so the minimum looks even worse when graphed.

    For shame.
    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/jaxa-version-2-make-the-low-even-lower-and-the-great-big-con-continues/

    Don’t miss the graph for 2007 vs 2013.

    Reply
    • Anto says:
      March 16, 2014 at 12:27 pm

      Gail – that’s unbelievable. They’ve adjusted the 1980’s average upwards by 1,000,000 square kilometres. How can they have suddenly “discovered” such a large error 30 years later? Criminals!

      Reply
  9. Robertv says:
    March 16, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    I would say that pole ice is not the normal in Earth’s history and that the last 2.5 million years temperatures have been much to cold. Just imagine that temperatures would go back to normal.

    Reply
  10. Dave says:
    March 16, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    If you look at sea ice concentration 2013 is looking better than other years in the past decade.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=13&fy=2006&sm=03&sd=13&sy=2014

    Reply
  11. rw says:
    March 16, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    I’m willing to chip in to buy Snow White a ticket for a trip through the Northwest Passage this summer. Of course we would still need to find someone willing to jettison a good sail boat.

    Reply
  12. Karl W. Braun says:
    March 17, 2014 at 7:21 am

    I think Gail must have chilled out the warmists. 🙂

    Reply
  13. rw says:
    March 17, 2014 at 11:33 am

    I find 2 interesting things about the posting and comments here:

    1) I assume that Berynn and Drewski made an honest mistake in looking at the graph of ice extent, mistaking 2012 for 2013. But what a convenient mistake for a warmist to make, fitting the data back into the warmist script.
    2) Then Snow White comes on board to harass the skeptics (or should I say the Trotskyites and wreckers?). Despite his protestations (elsewhere) of disinterested truth-seeking, and presumably having some knowledge of the topic, he never bothers to correct the original error. Although he could have pointed out that this was probably just an oversight that was being blown up out of proportion – and scored a mini-point. But he didn’t, which tells me that our truth-seeker was not interested in getting the facts right. For Snow White as for Berynn and Drewski, the facts are secondary to the story-line.

    Coda: This may be a nice example-in-miniature of how facts get twisted to support one’s attitudes and preconceptions – and how the new memes are then passed along.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *