This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Recent Activity
Vsaluki, it's already been done. Didn't you hear? When all the "questionable" records were removed, the temperature gradient went UP, not down. The study was part funded by the Koch brothers, no doubt convinced that they would, at lasts, get one single shred of real scientific evidence to make their claim that CO2 is not bad for the environment. The leader of the study, honest leader, had to step down from his previous assumption that the records were faulty and had to bless the work done by GISS and others. Judith Curry on the other hand had conniptions when her study did not produce the result she had staked her career on. She lambasted the project leader, called it all a fix and disowned her own work. All because the true and unbiased science did not fit her picture of the world. That is the difference between true science and the fairy stories being bandied about by the denialist crowd. So please take your observations about the GISS record set and fit them in whichever orifice hurts most. Because 1.5 billion temperature records, correctly analysed, do not lie.
Thanks for all the time you've put into this on my behalf already Chris. I can't think of any better way to explain it myself either and I'm consumed with discussions on the Scottish independence referendum at the moment. The Yes poll lost me €90 on my last pay which was paid in € into my UK account.... I'll check back in a while.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
Sorry Chris, this is not what I'm saying. "So what you are saying is that after 2012's September minimum the ice grew back by April 2013 to almost the same volume as in April 2012. Then with more second year ice after summer 2013, the April 2014 figure was still around the same." I'm saying that in the winter of 2012/13 the Area of the ice grew back to almost the same as it was when the 2012 melt season started. BUT. That Ice, of the same area, was not of the same consistency. It was 1mkm^2 more FYI than at the beginning of the 2012 melt season. So how could it be only 40kkm^3 less than 2012. Where did all that extra volume come from? It really is as simple as that. I don't understand. I'm willing to learn but I can't see any way that 1mkm^2 of FYI can create the same volume as 1mkm^2 of MYI. It doesn't make sense to me.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
KZ, Ghoti Of Lod said what I would have said. Nevis tends to melt back to almost no snow or ice each year. I've walked Nevis in an almost no ice year. In the last decade we reached a point where pretty much all snow and ice melted off Nevis. So this BBC story about "glaciation" is simply the BBC getting in the words they want there. The BBC has been developing a poor record on climate over the last decade. I was short because I believe that if you are going to come onto a board and start making statements, it is good form to actually check on what that forum holds and the information the people there are posting about. Chris Reynolds is quite right, there is significant evidence, in a large part aided by Chris, to completely void all the things you have said. If you want to talk about UK press articles I suggest you start and end at the Guardian. They have the best climate coverage in the UK press, bar none and dislike the politics of the paper as I do, I laud them for their very honest stance on the climate. I also have spent extensive time on WUWT and RC. I don't so much spend time on RC nowadays as my time is limited and there is more here than I can possibly cover in my free time. As for WUWT? I have pointed out to them their basic inconsistency over and over. Nobody is listening. If you read the post threads there are at least 3 competing theories for any one point in contention. All three are mutually exclusive and impossible to reconcile, yet, because they all agree on the same thing. Namely that AGW is a fake. They are willing to agree with each other. Nobody wants that kind of discussion here. There is much to learn and far too many things going on in the cryoshpere to spend any time on that kind of rubbish.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
That should have read "If that ice was even only 0.5m thicker"
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
Sorry I hope I'm not being dense here. But I said that over 1M sq km of extra ice melted out in 2012. Predominantly older MYI or > the 2.4m thickness you are stating here. If that ice was even only 0.5m thick that would mean 500,000 cubic km less ice volume than melting the same volume of FYI. So what are you saying? That the extra 460,000 cubic km of ice reported by PIOMAS for the high in 2013 (2013 was reported as 40kcukm less than 2013 at max), was created by extra thick FYI created by extra cold temperatures? Because as I remember it, it was late formation followed by over average warm temperatures followed by an early breakup in 2013. Not quite the conditions I would have expected to re-create the postulated half a million cubic km of ice lost by the loss of an additional 1m sqkm of MYI in 2012. I see what you are saying but I don't see how it relates to the sudden replacement of MYI, in one season, with FYI, to re-create almost the same volume start as 2012. It just doesn't work for me unless we are saying there were exceptionally cold conditions which created significantly thicker FYI than was seen in 2012. Your own statement was "And by May the thickness is 2.44m, similar to when PIOMAS and the simple model are run with 2012 profiles". If it's the same thickness to replace older thicker ice lost in 2012, then it's impossible for 2013 to have started with the same volume as 2012. Unless I'm missing something obvious?
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
"but now we can see new glaciers building up around Europe, even in Great Britain" There speaks the voice of an incurable myopic. I was in the highlands only one week ago. Grampians, Cairngorms, Lawyers Group, Beinn Mhor and south of the Nevis range. Glaciation? Well if green grass and bare stone is glaciation, there you have it. A few bits of snow in the north facing corries, but less than usual. Perhaps I got it wrong? Perhaps glaciation has struck in Wales? Or maybe London. Although I must admit a different kind of glaciation may strike in Westminster if the Scots vote Yes on September 18th.... Please go away and take your wet dreams with you.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Granted, when you lose first year ice. However how can PIOMAS defend replacing thicker multi year ice with first year ice and then stating that it is virtually the same volume for virtually the same area. It defies logic.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
I must admit I'm having a problem with not challenging the PIOMAS data. One glaring point makes it for me and I'd like someone to explain to me how PIOMAS is able to do this. At the end of the winter in 2012, before spring, PIOMAS had a max value of 23.37M. Yet, after attaining a lowest ever value of 3.67M, and after a low start to 2013 with the area eventually reaching very slightly higher than 2012, we get a volume max at the end of winter in 2013 of 23.33M. Now this is not working for me. For 2012 to have a triple. Volume, extent and area record, then pretty much all of the FYI and some additional MYI must have been lost. We also know that extensive export of older MYI happened in 2012. It is possible to lose MYI rapidly. But, with similar area, it is not possible to regain MYI in one season. How does the model explain and justify this? Because if it's not getting that right, then it's overestimating the volume of ice remaining.
Toggle Commented Sep 6, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
That was my view too Werther. I wasn't thinking 2007 onwards. I'm comparing what I used to view from about 2000 up to 2007. I know that AMSR2 has higher resolution and there is significantly better imaging than there used to be. But We would simply never see so much clearly broken up and openly floating ice in the decades gone by. The ice dynamics changed but the way of quantifying it as to how the pack looks, works, melts or even affects the environment around it is lagging. Time, as Never keeps telling us, will tell. Doesn't help my itch to know though.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 7: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
Last I saw on the Northern Sea route is that Russia insists any shipping takes icebreaker support and also the ships are supported by near real time satellite updates like the recent circumnavigation of the arctic events. These things will change over time as the ice retreats more. And it will.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 7: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Neven, Did you wonder if the fissured and fractured nature of the early pack is now draining the melt ponds before they are able to get going? The pack seems to have significant areas which are no longer contiguous ice but have hundreds of meters of open water between them. Could this be changing the weather over large areas of the pack? Certainly you can't see 2014 as any kind of recovery. The ice is in worse state than ever, not by statistics, but actually by looking at how it fits together. Also I note that there is now significant clear water north of the islands making up the Vilkitskiy Strait, making the Northern Sea Route open if you want to go round that way. The strait itself appears to be opening slowly, but the route itself is now open.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 7: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
Indeed Neven, I'm sort of a city kid but of a family of electricians on one side and engineers on the other with a strong streak of military service. Although I now work in computing I do most of my own DIY, except the really heavy stuff. I know the pain of sockets, etc, wires and knives don't really know when to stop.... :-)
Toggle Commented May 6, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks for the input Neven. Yes Solar Cells are a lot of work. But then my goal was to build small and scale up, taking over more of the home power circuits as I go. I have a 15M workshop to work in with a lot of woodworking tools, so it's not that much of an issue for me if I can have the free time.... My home has modular circuits which can be relayed to take solar, so I can grow my power farm and distribute it round the home with failover relays to the grid if required. During the last major power outage I came home, bought a 6kw Generator and created a simple switched power circuit to run all the fridges and freezers plus some of the home power. During my searches for inverters I found a quite innovative square wave inverter (US design spec), which, after much research and brain beating, I was able to find the parts to up the power to 15kw. Cost of components? About £200. The main issues I have with it are the 240v DC input which I'm not keen on working with and the fact that it can only be used for pumps, dumb motors and heating elements, as it will trash any fragile AC computing equipment. Square wave power supplies are very expensive and hard to come by. Surprise surprise...
Toggle Commented May 5, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Neven, looks really good. Can I ask a question about the solar array. Is that on both sides or is the 5kwh only on the sun facing side? Just to get an idea of area covered. I've been looking into Solar for years. If my wife ever catches on I'll finally be able to get the panels made. She thinks my time is better utilised in different things. Pre manufactured is waayy too expensive for me here compared to home build. What I did have to spend a huge amount of time trying to work out was the Inverter. My house feed is 12kw. Trying to find a 12kw inverter is extremely difficult if you want to really remove all grid input and you don't want to be bothered with certifications of grid tie. My initial investigations showed that the inverter was likely to be the biggest cost. 2/3kw was OK, ish. 4/6kw was sort of OK ish but getting pricey. But pure sine wave inverters for 10kw and up were astronomical, coming in at higher than the cost of the entire array. Grid, tie, of course is much cheaper as it's what most are going for. Eventually I found a source which ships from China in the £2,000 category for a 48v input. Other searching tells me that you need copper wound or the thing will fail in short order. By weight, the unit seems to be copper. I was wondering if you had thought about that?
Toggle Commented May 4, 2014 on Getting ready at Arctic Sea Ice
Merry Christmas Neven and all. A picture speaks a thousand words as they say. The $64k question is how many million words it will take to "wake up" the common herd???
Toggle Commented Dec 25, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
The published rationale behind the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was that the Japanese mentality of the time was to fight to the last life and the last inch of ground. To change that mentality required a game changer and the bombs were that. It undoubtedly saved millions of lives. What the private and political goals of these bombs were I leave to the imagination. Nobody needed to drop them to test them, they had already been tested. Now, on the other hand, CO2 and AGW are estimated to cost bilions of lives. The public rationale is: Convenience Cost No Change No Effort Votes. Now, if you would ask me, the lowest ebb of humanity is yet to come, but we are well on our way and the vast majority of the people with the ability to effect a change are quite happy with the status quo. That vast majority need to wake up and look around. Any language which is able to do that is, in my opinion, justified. For those of us who lived through the shadow of impending nuclear annihilation, this measure has some "in your face" effect. This is about communication of scientific fact to non scientists. On another topic, it's interesting to see how low 2013 has remained on the volume chart. It will be more interesting to see how the winter plays out.
Toggle Commented Dec 5, 2013 on PIOMAS December 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I note that CT SIA is now tracking 2011. I'm wondering if PIOMAS volume will begin to do the same. It would be an interesting end to a very interesting season.
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2013 on PIOMAS November 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I haven't heard about this one, but I believe the process is something like this http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/57/203/j10J138.pdf Where the shelves are lost and the glaciers which have no natural barrier start to discharge at massive rates. PIG is slightly different here as there is, quite literally, a small mountain range between the grounded glacier at the seaboard end and the up range glacier. Scientists are interested in what may happen if/when, the sea finally manages to melt back to the mountain range and melts out the blocking ice, floating the glacier on a small lake. Interesting thoughts.
Toggle Commented Nov 18, 2013 on PIOMAS November 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I recall the first large "shock" event with PIG. The we were told "Well it's a 10 year event, nothing to worry about really". I'll take a look, I usually look a few times each season. I've been waiting for the breakup down the sides of the Glacier to finally start breaking off the main glacier itself. Not before time. I'm wondering how the Wilkins is doing at the moment. It seems to come in waves down there.
Toggle Commented Nov 13, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@Lars, I did read the post, but I also know that 2005 - 2008 were normal, not low. It was 2008 to 2010 which was exceptionally low. I think we're saying the same thing, I'm just saying that there is an impact, no matter how small and also that those who watch the sun believe they have a reason for believing that solar impact is greater than it actually is.
Toggle Commented Nov 13, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@jdallen I was very careful to say that the sun was not a cause but a contributor. The sun is just about the _only_ heat budget the planet has. If you only have one heat input, any change to it is significant in one way or another. It is the significance compared to the heat retention of CO2 which is the issue. CO2 is worth many, many w/sqm. However that does not mean solar variance has no impact. It may be lost in the noise but it is there and contributing. @larsboelen The solar cycle is not at minimum, it's at maximum right now. Granted it's about half cycle23 maximum, but not low. The end of cycle23 came at the end of 2007. It was pretty much a normaly (if very strong and high), cycle till the end of 2007. Then it fell off a cliff. The longest period of 0 sunspots for 100 years. At the beginning of 2010 the new cycle sputtered into life and started growing. So you can see they have a reason to believe the sun worshipers. 2008/9 are a significant positive anomaly in an otherwise rapidly diminishing trend. When the cycle kicks off again, one year after the cycle peak to date, we see a devastating destruction of the Arctic ice in 2012. You know it's not just about the sun. I know it's not just about the sun. But try telling them that!!
Toggle Commented Nov 12, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
@Jim Whilst NJSnowfan is incorrect that it's _all_ solar, you have to look at the figures. In the last month solar flux increased by 60 - 90% and sunspots increased as much as 200%. Whilst this will not cause a one month blip (solar is a slow forcing over time), I paraphrase Hansen et al. It is not whether or not a 60% increase in solar flux does impact weather and climate on Earth, it is "How can it not". The questions is not whether it impacted a one, two or three month trend; it almost certainly did not. It is more a case of what contributory effect did it have to other things which were already going on? Case in point, AO as pointed out by Neven, Methane as already said and also sequestered heat which was trapped with rapid ice onset. Solar flux and sunspot activity is still below 2012 but is higher than most of 2011. However to put it in context, it is certainly much higher than all years from 2004 to 2010. I continue to watch. I'm looking for a 2006 re-run. If we get it, then I will look to 2014 with keen anticipation. Whatever happens it's unlikely to be boring. Even if it is all bad news and more drastic melting.
Toggle Commented Nov 12, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013, take two at Arctic Sea Ice
I'll be _very_ interested to see both October and November data. Cryosphere today trend for area has almost levelled at 2011 levels. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I was talking about 2006 and the Day300 onwards move into 2007. How the very low ice levels out of 2006 kicked the ball off for the 2007 melt season. Also I note: 2012 CO2 growth was exactly the same as 2005 2005 was a _shock_ melt year 2006 was a slow year Followed by 2007. I'm just wondering if events will repeat themselves again. Although I expect the CO2 growth in 2013 to greatly exceed that of 2006 which was, decadally speaking, below average.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2013 on PIOMAS October 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
As Solar is one of my tracking series for my interests in the heat balance of the planet and the impact on AGW, I have a few points to make. When we hit the cycle 23/4 minimum and cycle 24 looked like it was either going to drop into a Maunder type minimum or be a very slow start, Hansen and some others sat down and worked out what it would mean. They came up with a figure. 8%. That would be the impact in s/sqm hitting the surface of the planet for the next 100 years if the sun continued at minimum instead of moving to a normal cycle. Then they worked out the impact of CO2 from AGW. I believe that they calculated that the CO2 signature would overwhelm the reduced solar output long before 2050. In fact I believe it was <2030 but I just don't remember. So, given that cycle 24 did restart and is running at about 50% of cycle 23, then it is very little surprise that we have seen years like 2012 in the Arctic. The most joined up thinking I have seen to date, links Solar output, CO2 Levels, ENSO state and volcanic activity. When they are all put together, I believe, the current Arctic situation is easier to understand. What I also believe is that the solar output will rise again and the CO2 continues to rise. There can only be ONE result of that.