Ice Closer To Alaska Than 16 Years Ago

6 Responses to Ice Closer To Alaska Than 16 Years Ago

1. Truthseeker says:

   October 4, 2014 at 11:58 am

   They keep using the word “scientist” … I do not think that it means what they seem to think it means.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     October 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm

     the word “scientist” = Government Prostitute these days.

     Reply
     • there is no substitute for victory says:

       October 7, 2014 at 5:09 am

       The word “Walrus Scientist” means Bill McKibben.
       https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=d8mb2bsgseg4f

       Here is what real marine zoologist have to say about walruses and their need for land, a shallow sea floor (to hunt clams on) and the total uselessness (to a walrus) of thick pack ice or any pack ice over deep water.

       http://animals.pawnation.com/mating-habits-walruses-10662.html

       Tony or Steve, perhaps you can make a better case than I can, that Bill McKibben is ignorant of the facs of life as these facts relate to the walrus, or to the walruses’ food value to polar bears in Summer when seals may be unavailable. There certainly is no shortage of polar bears in the following video.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXhiLrfqfk

       Reply
2. chris y says:

   October 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm

   NCAR states this about reanalysis data sets-

   “Key Limitations:
   Reanalysis data sets should not be equated with “observations” or “reality”.
   The changing mix of observations, and biases in observations and models, can introduce spurious variability and trends into reanalysis outputs…
   Observational constraints, and therefore reanalysis reliability, can considerably vary depending on the location, time period, and variable considered.”

   Now, shouldn’t the climate community treat adjusted surface temperature data as Reanalysis data? They are, after all, using numerous models to infill and adjust for precisely the types of changes itemized by NCAR.

   Perhaps any time adjusted observations are plotted, the graph should include the disclaimer-

   **** This reanalysed data should not be confused with “observations” or “reality.” ***

   Reply
3. Dmh says:

   October 5, 2014 at 1:13 am

   A bit off topic but interesting,
   “… Very high SO2 values were measured at the eruption site yesterday [02.10.2014]. It is estimated that 35.000 tons of SO2 are produced by the eruption daily… ”
   https://www.facebook.com/earthice.UI/posts/831459543540745
   I believe this could start to have some climate effect very soon, if it continues unabated for a couple of months more.
   I could affect the Arctic ice at the end of this year.

   Reply
   • Dmh says:

     October 5, 2014 at 1:15 am

     I have to correct this:
     “I” cannot affect the Arctic ice, but “It” (SO2) could affect the Arctic ice by the end of the year… 🙂

     Reply