Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University warned in the Guardian during summer 2013 that the Arctic will be ice free in a few weeks, and that a “methane catastrophe” will occur.
Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian
Meanwhile, here in the actual world, Arctic sea ice continues to track 2006 – the year with the highest summer minimum of the past decade.
There is not the slightest indication that Arctic sea ice is disappearing. Arctic sea is two meters thick, the thickest it has been since 2006 – and about the same thickness it was 75 years ago.
Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png (2488×1960)
Papers Past — Auckland Star — 14 December 1940 — WARMER ARCTIC
The only “methane catastrophe” is the level of climate BS emanating from our top scientists, journalists, and government officials. It stinks to high heaven.
I just found this one in my youtube feed…Thousands Of Tuna Crabs Wash Up On San Diego Beaches https://youtu.be/ThZlguk9iRc
Billions of our money wasted on a fear orchestrated
By those whose agenda is green,
False predictions galore, they keep giving us more,
The most incredulous “science” ever seen!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/false-predictions/
What an absolute JOKE !!!!
The Arctic was warmer by 1 – 3 degrees, with much less sea ice, for most of the last 10,000 years !
The Arctic temperature is actually only just above the coldest period in the whole of the Holocene.
https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-25-at-11-09-40.png
The guy, Ed Hoskins, really likes graphs and has a whole bunch of useful ones:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/
See his about page too:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/about/
Tallbloke has a guest essay by Ed Hoskins
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/ed-hoskins-capital-cost-and-production-effectiveness-of-renewable-energy-in-europe-the-data/
New Perspectives in Public Health – Page 191
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1857757912
Also see an essay by Tony Brown (tonyb) descussing a paper by Ed Hoskins on Judith Curry’s site
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/
Ed Hoskins is definately a guy worth reading.
I like the graph. With a graph like that that from the observation of TIME itself! How can THEY lie about GLOBAL WARMING or now CLIMATE CHANGE and actually get away with it? I guess it is just as George Bush said on the TV: “The TRUTH is whatever I say it is!” It would be interesting to know how a graph like the one above is obtained? That way I might have some interesting material to argue the fact that we are probably heading for an ICE-AGE.
See the direct LINK to my website below about such topics:-
http://www.outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk/412667930
e-mail: [email protected]
Best Wishes,
Steve
The GRIP and GISP2 data for Greenland is readily available through a Google search.
For the particular format used above, maybe try to strip some of the url and get back to the guy’s home page. Haven’t tried it myself, rather busy on other stuff.
Stephen,
They can lie and get away with it because the MSM chooses what they want to print
and promote.
Thomas Jefferson would not be happy
Here in mid-June, Hudson Bay is still well over half frozen over, with below normal temperatures forecast for the rest of the month. Hardly sounds like an Arctic catastrophy of any sort.
Which side of the debate does this best describe? – “A fraudulent conspiracy motivated by money, perpetrated on the gullible.”
Is the Pentagon part of the “conspiracy”? Do they understand the science?
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
“The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities.”
Is there any substantive evidence of a past “methane catastrophe” of the type this Dr. Peter Wadhams predicts? IOW, is there good evidence that what this clown is predicting ever happened before?
hmmmm..
Where does that little red line think its going ! ?
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
darn, pic link didn’t work.
oh well, right click on pic link and open in new tab or window, seems to work.
There doesn’t have to be a methane catastrophe:
Hormonal treatment for cows could reduce global warming
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-hormonal-treatment-cows-global.html
So following that logic, greens committed to organic, hormone free beef would be contributing to global warming.
Nice bit of irony.
Thanks for pointing that out (-:
Oh there will be, count on it.
“Jabber the Hunt” will dine on a large helping of beans with his “full English” and then make an appearance here.
Can you say “Methane Catastrophe” ??
This is Wadhams interviewed in the article:
Why do the climate models not match empirical observations – and why is your estimate of the Arctic sea ice disappearance so different from most model projections?
The modellers did not pay sufficient regard to observations, especially of ice thickness. They considered certain physical processes in the model, then when the rate of retreat greatly outstripped the predictions of the model, they ignored the observations and stuck with the model. A very great physicist, Richard Feynmann,[sic] said that when a model comes up against measurements that contradict it, it is the measurements that must be preferred and the model must be abandoned or changed. Scientists who have a lot of their credibility bound up in a model are reluctant to do this. Then there are a number of key processes that can only be represented if the model has a very fine grid scale, such effects as the break-up of ice due to waves generated in the large areas of open water that we now have in summer; or the additional weakening of the ice by meltwater pools that melt their way right through the ice sheet. A modeller who represents all these fine scale processes is Wiselaw Maslowsky (Monterey) and his models agree with my empirical predictions.
Appealing to Feynman! He’s heading for being hoisted by his own petard. I hope when his ridiculous prediction fails to materialize that he abandons his model and eats humble pie in the Guardian.
Interesting Freudian slip with the spelling of Feynman.
Where is the heat to convert the hydrates to gas?
Gas hydrates decomposition is accompanied by heat absorption of high specific enthalpy reaching 0.5 MJ/kg (for example, melting heat of ice is 0.34 MJ/kg). Therefore, the simple lowering pressure above gas hydrate below the equilibrium point, or rising the temperature above the equilibrium appear to be insufficient for achievement of sustained hydrates dissociation. Sustainable phase transformation in this system needs continuous heat supply. In natural conditions, gas hydrate dissociation is driven by heat accumulated within the reservoir combined with heat influx from the surrounding rock mass. However, the latter is usually negligible, thus the in-situ gas hydrate dissociation should be basically endothermic (i.e. comprising a heat absorption process).
0.5 kg of hydrates melted will freeze 1.47 kg of water? They still do not know thermodynamics.
Nice analysis.
The more the ClimAstrologists open their mouths the more it is apparent they are Lysenkoists and piss poor ones at that. No wonder it was necessary to dumb down US schools before the elite and their fawning serfs made their move. Anyone with a decent education could think circles around the ClimAstrologists.
What these alarmist fools fail to understand is that the science will NEVER be “settled,” because SCIENCE IS STATIC, it is ALWAYS changing.
Just 2 examples of science being STATIC:
One year science tells women that “the pill” will cause uterine cancer, a year later science says that “the pill” will prevent uterine cancer.
One year science tells women that “the pill” will cause breast cancer, a year later science says that “the pill” will prevent breast cancer.
And this back-and-forth of the science of “the pill” has been going on for DECADES!
I am guessing you meant science is NOT static. To the extent that it is ‘settled’ it is actually NOT science.