This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Varies
Obtuse challenger
Interests: Anything off the wall
Recent Activity
Jim, that's not the point, telling them this year is not it and using this year as an example is not it either. Next year, even if it's not a record. Even if there is no drought in the US, THAT is the time to tell them that a record setting year in the Arctic is still a complete disaster. The point is telling them when it's not a record year and why that is so important in the overall scheme. They need to hear it every year all the time until they get the idea that this is a process and not a 5 minute emergency. It's hard work.
Toggle Commented Sep 17, 2012 on Joe Bastardi found a cherry at Arctic Sea Ice
GRRR all thumbs and a stupidly slow connection. Cont… Escalation of the situation. However the people will see it as normal. So when another huge drop happens again, the ground work is not done to explain how large a disaster this really is. So we actually build up bad news for ourselves by not being consistent in following up and making the press follow up. Think it can’t happen? It already has. Just check out the news on the Wilkins Ice shelf. The mass breakout, the ice bridge collapse. Loads of news, big story, huge “so what, whatever, tiny amount of ice” from the denialospher. But when the bridge did go and the massive breakout behind it happened, what did we hear? Nothing, zip. It was a HUGE story but nobody ran it because our community did not force it. OK so we expected it but we did not Communicate it. Because this happens time and time again it gives legitimacy to people like Bastardi who choose to present a false picture. People believe him because all they ever see is “shock news” with no follow up. So they believe that “nothing ever happened”. We have to change that way of communicating or we will live to see the worst scenario possible because people like Bastardi will win this game of “tell the people”. Remember he’s telling them what they want to hear. We are telling them something they seriously do NOT want to hear.
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2012 on Joe Bastardi found a cherry at Arctic Sea Ice
@Geoff, I've started passing that link out to my usual contacts and they are signing it. AS to the whole Forbes bag of smelly stuff? They're supposed to know how the economy works. Transition costs are initially high and then the economy moves to a different track and continues to make money. There will always be money for companies and people to make. The biggest losers will be those who won't change. That is common throughout history. Sometimes I wonder if we are not our own worse enemies by not understanding how the people and the media interact. So this year there will be news and fanfare as the Arctic ice does another 2007. The real story (non exceptional circumstances so it's volume not weather as the driver), will never be heard. But that's par for the course. However, next year, even if it does exactly the same again with nothing worse, it won't hit the news. Now this is a disaster because getting the same result as 2012 two years running is a SIGNIFICANT
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2012 on Joe Bastardi found a cherry at Arctic Sea Ice
From what I can see CT peaked on Sept 7th and has been climbing since.... http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html Am I missing something?
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2012 on Minimum open thread at Arctic Sea Ice
I was just informed by #3 son that Uni Bremen AMSR2 images are now out. They are pretty stunning and crystal clear. It becomes very clear just how much ice went down the Fram strait in the last storm. Canadian Archipelago is also 3/4 ice free. Both passages are now open and the melt continues. http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
Toggle Commented Sep 11, 2012 on Minimum open thread at Arctic Sea Ice
I noticed Watts did not submit for the latest SEARCH estimate. I wonder if he took on board my comment about him dropping his estimate by 1M SQKM between 2007 and 2012 whilst trumpteing "recovery". It would have been impossible for him to have submitted a high enough estimate to avoid that criticism again due to the melt. I notice the current weather pattern seems to be kicking loss off again but very slowly. I'd bet on about Septmeber 15th at the latest before we see the end of melt. Re-freeze is another thing. I've been wondering about the mpemba effect for years now. Perhaps we will eventually see if this phenomena actually has an impact in sea ice. It's going to blow all the anomaly records in October though. Without a doubt.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2012 on Minimum open thread at Arctic Sea Ice
Over the last 17 years or so of digging into the whole arena of AGW, I have noticed one thing to be true. That those who think laterally and allow themselves to envision what "might" be, as opposed to what can be calculated using existing techniques, have come out with estimates far exceeding the established norm. Not the wild imaginings of devastation, but calculated esitmates of possible impact or consequences. I've noticed that those people are right far more often than those who use only the existing material/techniques and analyse these data to death. It's not very scientific on my part, however it has no less validity. I surmise that Waddham is closer to the truth than many would like to believe. Eventually we will have a full model system with full feedbacks and known interactions. That is becuase the way we are approaching this today ensures that we won't be able to limit the impact and we will get to experience it first hand. All we need is enough instrumentation to record it all. Then perhaps another version of our society may actually be able to avoid this mess in the future. Given that we are able to keep the science from being lost. Because they will have a truly scientific answer. That of replication and the ability to match to known data.
OOOps. meant copying the line to 2007, not 2010. Posting with a cold... Not good news.
Rob, I noted that Spencer specifically uses the word Departure to hide his meaning. I didn't need the coffee away from the keyboard. I have no illusions as to what I will see on Spencers site, Watts quotes him far too much for that.
The thing that always frustrated me about the CT charts is the anomaly. It is calculated on a mean which includes 20007. Had we seen this kind of melt in 2007 the anomaly would be much bigger. People like Watts USE this to spread disinformation. I think the NSIDC comparison of up to 2000 is much more apt in determining anomalies outside the general trend.
I did a bit of checking on the CT anomaly ticker. 2007 to 2012 at this date. I took the ticker chopped off from 2007 and then put a line on the 2012 chart. Copying the line to 2010 nets around 1.8M anomaly. They're going to have to make the anomaly chart bigger, it's certainly going to blow 3M by the end of October. What I'm wondering is about state changes. Today we see volume reductions based upon the current state, still with some sort of ice cap. I'm wondering if the change, when we do see an ice free arctic, will not change again. It may be that winter and spring volumes are not going to decline in a linear way, or even an exponential way. Just surmise, I have no intention of being surprised if we see 2/3 months ice free in 2020 and then it stays that way for another 10 years until additional feedbacks kick in.
"Webcast - Oslo Science Conference - Dr. David Barber "On Thin Ice: The Arctic and Climate Change"" Been there done that. Get a server not found stream error.
The point I was trying to make earlier is clearly stated by Dr Barber himself here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjaVp6AS5XU A very key point from his talk is that the satellites were incorrectly classifying MY ice. Something he reiterated in March 2011 and I have not heard any more about the training they are trying to do. So it would not be surprising if PIOMAS was actually highly optimistic and it would be no suprise if the melt being seen in MY ice areas is actually the annual ice melting out leaving the rotten ice behind. When trying to calculate the volume of ice remaining, this information is critical. Sadly his lecture in Norway "On Thin Ice: The Arctic and Climate Change" can't be accessed now.
@Phbeckwith Back in 2006/7, before the big melt back, I predicted that if things stayed the way they were going we could be ice free in the arctic by 2010. Then we had the lowest solar minimum in a century. It didn't really slow things down that much, but just enough to ensure that the trend flattened until the cycle picked back up again. Next year is the top of the solar maximum. I don't see 2012 going quite enough to be ice free this year. Maybe <2M area and <3.5M extent but, probably, no more than that. Next year, however. Barring a massive cooling event (Pinatubo sized), it's likely to all go. Well at least down to <1m area. Which is, by most people's calculations, functionally gone.
I did. They don't seem to want to answer.....
Watts is doing his usual and being economical with the truth. My feeling is that we are still learning about the impact of climate change on the arctic. Nobody calculated the impact of this storm because we've never seen a full blown summer arctic storm with this kind of ice volume and extent before. As more and more of the extent becomes 15% ice it is much easier for a storm of this kind to overwhelm what is left. Hence Extent can fall much faster than area. Now that we are clear about what this kind of storm does and the likelihood of another one coming, then it will be factored into the SEARCH submissions. However it's a moot point. I'm pretty sure Dr David Barber is right and that we'll see <1m sq km by 2016. The damage is already too extensive, CO2 continues to rise and we hit the peak of the solar cycle next year. Hardly a recipie made for more ice......
grr, slow network, bad keying. As I was saying. CLEAN not CLEANER. We have hardly begun. Then factor in that the best and the brightest have been working out the best ways to extract and burn Cabron fuesl for 200 years. How long is it going to take us to extract all the carbon when we are still burning it like mad.... I don't feel confident at all... When, not IF the Arctic becomes ice free in summer and the methan starts to really bubble, our best and brightest will be working out how to get the methane out before we lose it, so we can BURN it too and complete the job. We're too stupid to survive as a society. However we might just be clever enough to survive as a species....
I note the Greenland article talks about thinning OR lubrication. Nobody seems to be talking about thinning AND lubrication... Odd how vertical science can be... Is it worth talking around another issue. When we talk about technical solutions to the issue, we always miss the obvoius. Energy. Because in order to fix this whole mess we need to start at the ground and work up. The ground being the energy industry. Everythin we try, every single thing, will come down to how much energy we need to put into it. We haven't even started on the groundwork. Which is 200% conversion of our energy generation to carbon neutral. Why 200%? Because we're going to need 100% for what we already do and another 100% to fix the unholy mess. We haven't even scratched the surface of the first 100% so everything we do is just shuffling chairs. Like EV on Coal. So it's cleaner. So what. It'll still kill us. It needs to be CLEAN
I like this presentation. However I also like the disccussions on Arctic ice loss and the wording on it. The question is not whether or not the loss of the Arctic ice will impact the climate of the planet and change weather patterns. The question is "How can it not?". As for cherry picking data? My take is that trend analysis is not cherry picking. Trend analysis is taking those "relevant" data and analysing them to determine the changes, "trends", over time. That is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is what people do to present a result which meets their personal goals, rather than presenting the actual true picture. Something that everyone should understand clearly and most, clearly, don't.
Hit post without meaning to... Should we not use this inconsistency to beat WUWT into silence every time they pop up???
If I recall correctly, when WUWT were doing their song and dance about the super ice growth in the Arctic, they were forecasting 5.5m or 5.6m on SEARCH
NeilT is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 13, 2012