Ric Werme is one of the people on WUWT who frequently doesn’t bother to read what I actually wrote, and then goes on a rampage complaining that I am wrong. Then it becomes urban legend, and their poor reading comprehension becomes an excuse for alarmists to ignore my important work.
Ric did it again this morning here.
Steven / Tony … you are indeed correct but even I as a long time visitor to this site did a double take and thought WTF when you first (last week I think) started showing the DMI graph with the no melting claim and then I realized you are essentially speaking of only the arctic basin / north of 80. Sometimes you could be clearer, especially when it comes to trying to get your point across to someone who may be visiting your site for the first time and have zero knowledge of the subject of the post. I know it is a pain to think of dumbing it down or making the post wordier to make the point clearer but ultimately it might avoid some of the frustrations and fights you end up in on the blog and result in you being a happier camper.
Just trying to help … don’t shoot the messenger 😉
I could be mis-remembering, but I seem to remember that graph always being clearly labeled as 80N.
Chip it is the “almost no melting so far” headline that generates the confusion since if you have been watching the arctic, 2014 melting is well underway on all the graphs of arctic sea ice and it is only when u go to specific areas like the arctic basin that there is little to no melting …. I honestly don’t know what the geographic coverage of Cyrosphere’s arctic basin graphic is.
Anyway it isn’t worth fighting over and yes the DMI graphic is labeled but still I was at first confused and Ric was obviously confused re exactly what Steven / Tony was referring to when he said almost no melting.
Here is the link to cryosphere is u aren’t familiar with it …melting in all basins but the arctic basin and the Canadian archipelago area and most are now showing melting above the long term rate (although I’m not sure I believe it since this too is likely “adjusted” to get with the program as Steven / Tony loves to show about the temps) http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
I think its a great post… all the Warmists would have you believe the Arctic Ice is all busted up and melted… Polar Bears are dying off… all of which isn’t true. Warmists cherry-pick and incident or weather event which supports their theory… thus they would never show an Arctic frozen solid in July with excess “old” ice in the mix.. which was the big claim last year.. “less old ice”…
Expect a reply from Ric that reads something like this:
“blah blah blah you and your blog blah blah ice melted there yesterday blah it has been hotter there than the past 20,000 years blah blah recorded ice at Barrow doesn’t mean it’s frozen over you can’t keep anything straight you never could blah blah etc”
Yeah, and the reply will likely be behind the cloistered, censored, walls of WUWT, where he will not have to deal with commenters bringing “real science”.
Why would I do that?
Ric, did you happen to notice the lack of moderation here? How about the lack of censorship?
Are you telling us you did not notice?
CRREL mass balance buoys located in various places about the Arctic:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoysum.htm
Temperatures for 30 June 2014:
2014E +0.05°C
2014D -0.72°C
2014C -1.41°C
2014B -0.38°C
2013F -1.57°C
2012G -0.24°C
Not a whole lot of melting going on there. Same applies under the water – see the link.
Thanks for the link – bookmarked
You are both wrong. Al Gore said the all the ice would melt at the North Pole. So did David Suzuki.
And they are ever so smart and honest we just have to believe them.
Really we do. Obama said so.
Oh OK.
It’s still all melting, right, OK.
Melting for twenty years and it’s still there, OK.
If Obama say so and he’s never lied, OK.
That OK then.
Ummm, I think Fred from Canuckistan is trying to trick me.
Don’t worry Fred .. it will happen … the North Pole didn’t get Al Gore’s message yet.
I found it amusing that Ric and Mosher both seem to think the government was primarily responsible for the creation of the Internet, as though the trillions of dollars spent on billions of computers and millions of routers and switches produced in the private sector were just some unimportant side work that happened to coincide with the really important development: a simple communications protocol.
The government is, however, responsible for the status of “Global Warming Science”, and I use the word “Science” with much regret.
There’s a vast difference between the creation of the Internet and what it enabled. Perhaps the problem is one of scale – the ARPAnet maxed out at 256 computers at 64 sites. In my thinking, I see the Internet being created in the first several years with the development of TCP/IP and the adaptation of ARPAnet protocols like telnet and FTP (FTP handled Email back then). It was after the Internet was created that it really began to blossom with the development of the World Wide Web, and that’s really what has driven the “the trillions of dollars spent on billions of computers and millions of routers and switches produced in the private sector”. I think of creation as analogous to my mother hosting this parasite for nine months, or God’s supposed six day effort to create a universe with two people. The important work came afterwards, we agree on that.
I imagine most people think of the Internet in terms of what they see through the web, as well they should, those of us who were around back then saw a very different creation. Sorry how Email turned out. We just didn’t think big enough to imagine multi-million spam messages pushing penis growth products.
“Colored by the only reality they know.”
I always wondered why the rest of the world was behind the times. In the later half of the 1970s TI had installed an IBM mainframe ‘system’ that allowed the viewing of ‘web pages’ (textual page) via the IMS (Information Management System software facility) and “e-mail” via the MSG (Message) facility. These ‘facilities’ were accessed via early smart terminals called “TI-914” terminals and were on all the engineering desks and connected via ‘packet’ routing ‘switches’ (computers) comprised of TI-960 minis (which were built using TTL SSI and MSI logic, not uCs) back to the mainframe.
Into the 1980’s we all had “Televideo” smart terminals on our desks connected via the LAN to minis (TI-990 s and Vaxes: 11/780’s initially). The Decs had DECNET and were also tied back into the CIC (Corporate Information Center) IBM System/370 mainframe and could do IBM 3270 terminal emulation for real-time apps …
Like I said, I always thought the rest of the world was behind the times …
.
Gack, I didn’t have access to a computer at work until after 1985 and that was only because the Accounting Department were getting brand new ones. We got One (1) computer that the QC lab and the Chem Engineering department had to share. Within 6 months one of the Chem engineers fried the mother board by using the computer in the middle of a hot summers day after I told him NOT to fire it up until the temp cooled down. (Some engineers have no common sense.)
At the time, we thought nothing of it. All ‘textual’ content. Even SPICE outputs were character plots/graphs on that wide computer paper. Jobs submitted initially via card decks and later on via TI-990’s which acted as RJE (Remote Job Entry) terminals to the mainframe. Most uses of the TI-914’s and mainframes were for Bill of Material creation, inventory or ‘stock’ queries looking for specific parts for prototyping. At that time drawings were still ‘paper’/vellum and copies made via that stinky blue-line machine … full automation of the design cycle using PCs started in the late 1980s … first PC I had there was a TI Business Pro – 80286 equipped, bit a screamer compared to a bare bones original “PC” …
“There’s a vast difference between the creation of the Internet and what it enabled.”
ARPANET didn’t enable anything. If ARPANET had never existed, we would just use some other communications protocol with similar features.
Samuel Morse came up with a communications protocol too, but he didn’t “enable the telegraph.”
e.g. IBM’s SNA protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architecture
SNA – IBM’s proprietary networking architecture, created in 1974 is a complete protocol stack for interconnecting computers and their resources. SNA describes formats and protocols and is, in itself, not a piece of software. The implementation of SNA takes the form of various communications packages, most notably Virtual Telecommunications Access Method (VTAM), the mainframe package for SNA communications.
You meant to say you didn’t think small enough.
Conservatives know that while men aspire to become angels they mostly end up doing something else.
My hero a must see confirms everything you said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
Prof Don Easterbrook
Especially the NOAA data tampering bit. He showed this in 2013.
In particular the “earlier adjusments”
thank you for the link eliza. note google do not show the like vs the do not like data for the film. NASA must be processing it for them.
the mainstream media position may be slow to change,but on all major outlets the comments are very telling these days.the beginning of the end of the scam is here.
” note google do not show the like vs the do not like data for the film. ”
Note: Like/Dislike “counters” can optionally be disabled by whomever ‘owns’ that particular YouTube channel. Likewise comments can also be disabled, as one sometimes see on controversial subjects. So, sorry, the odds are that the uploader/author of that channel chose not to display the likes and dislikes, which can sometimes be distracting and also the ‘target’ of vengeful or vile groups that ‘target’ videos for down-votes which do not like or agree with.
.
Like to add my thanks for your post.
Powerful presentation. Sadly few congressmen were in attendance to hear it.
Wow. Thanks for the link Eliza.
The fireworks start at about the 16:00 point when Sen. Kevin Ranker (D) raises a point that his ‘data’ does not match what Dr. Easterbrook has.
At 16:54 Dr Easterbrook responds that he is showing the original data, and that the data to which the Senator refers has been “tampered with by NOAA and NASA”.
.
An excellent presentation. Everyone should watch it.
You are winning. Way to go.
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/#ixzz369MCcXMg
I don’t know if you people ever visit http://www.weatheraction.com the Piers Corbyn website. Dr. Corbyn has pointed out that during “the year without a summer” 1815, a very cold year in history, there was not much Arctic sea ice. The whole “Arctic sea ice melt-scam” is completely bogus. The extent of Arctic sea ice depends more on ocean currents than on temperatures in the Polar region. The extent of Antarctic sea ice is far more relevant to climate change than the extent of Artic sea ice. And we all know that the extent of Antarctic sea ice is growing and growing because our earth is cooling down.
Sorry, I meant 1816. 1815 was the year of the Tambora eruption on Sumbawa Island Indonesia.
Steven Goddard writes:
> Ric Werme is one of the people on WUWT who frequently doesn’t bother to read what I actually wrote,
I’m sorry, I should have caught that, clearly I’m out of practice. My own bias this year is on the CFSv2’s forecast of a positive areal anomaly for August, September, and October. I don’t put much stock into the DMI 80N + temperature graph. The average high temp for the period looks like it’s 275K, and that just doesn’t amount to much melting, all the sea ice keeps the air cool.
Besides, The DMI temperature this year is looking a lot like the graph from last year, see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php and click on 2013.
Also, there are other sources of ice loss – sunlight, warm currents melting from below, wind and water currents forcing ice out of the Arctic, and probably a few other things of lesser significance.
Again, apologies for assuming you were referring to the Arctic as a whole despite the title making it clear you were talking about a single point. However, please work on clarity of presentation! Yes, I know where the North Pole is – it’s 600 nm north of latitude 80N. That’s about the distance from Augusta GA to Toronto. 600 nm is 1100 km – about what James Hansen used for the range of an Arctic temperature reading!
Oh – I just read the parent post, I see others pointed out some of this too.
Another clarification – “The sun is 23 degrees lower in the sky at the North Pole than at the Arctic Circle.” That’s true only at local noon at each point on the Arctic Circle. At midnight on the summer solstice, the Sun will be 23.44° high at the pole. The center of the sun will be just above the northern horizon from the Arctic Circle thanks to refraction of the atmosphere.
And you still believe that CO2 doesn’t freeze below its freezing point.
Sure. Every morning last winter when I went to start my car and it didn’t have frost on the windshield, I thought nice thoughts about the frost point (a little warmer than the dew point!) and the partial pressure of water vapor. I’d usually also notice an overcast sky, a fine reminder that clouds do a better job being a blanket than CO2 or water vapor.
Of course, sometimes water vapor freezes below its freezing point. Frozen dew is annoying to scrape off the windshield, but not because of the frost on the dew drops.
I was going to argue with Steve also until I read it. The thing that throws is the reference to the North Pole Season.
What is the North Pole Season? It’s a conjunction of words that do not normally fit together.
It would have been better to simply say No melting at the North Pole yet during the Arctic melt season.
Problably best not to castigate the reader when it is the writing which needs brushing up on. As multiple people have now pointed out.
Andy
Yes, you show the same reading comprehension problems all the time. Tests like these are how engineering schools typically separate future engineers from future basket weavers.
It really is cold in midsummer in Norway. Even HuffPo says so.
Frozen fish in the fjords!
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4596811?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003