This is BryantFinlay's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following BryantFinlay's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Chris, Honestly, I meant no disrespect to Wadhams. He's a good guy who provides valuable insight, even if I do disagree with his conclusions. It's just that I get upset when people like the individuals I quoted above take Wadham's word as gospel and ignore the actual data, which does not support a crash. Anyway, I'll sit back and let the ice decide :)
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, I am not trying to create conflict on this blog. Jim, I'm talking about A-Team and TenneyNaumer in particular. This quote from Tenney: "OK, this is it. I am calling #FAIL on PIOMAS' volume numbers. They're ridiculous. Peter Wadhams has said they are not validated." So he's rejecting reliable numbers because one scientist says that? That's a fairly thin argument considering DMI backs up PIOMAS to a certain degree. And I'll quote A-Team as well: "I also took a good look at the dissertation focus, career track, ~230 publications and 40 years of Arctic field expeditions of P Wadhams. In a nutshell, quite extraordinary. Indeed, decades of research in mathematical physics of wave-ice interaction is especially timely, given the newly extended wind reach in the late-season Arctic Ocean and consequent far-reaching swell penetration, fragmentation of pack ice and enhanced lateral melt, none of which is in Piomas or any of the others. Maybe read the articles below? I’m very familiar with PNAS articles published by formerly distinguished but currently demented or self-deluded Academy members seeking to bask once again in the public limelight. Daft does not seem applicable here (though we're all headed there). I see a fair amount of commentary bordering on outright ad hominem coming from programmers with zero qualifications in ice physics and no first-hand observation of the Arctic. Chasing down the worst of these, where Wadhams is quoted as saying his Arctic predictions are “not based on physics”, is quite different in full context. This is humor, intended to put modellers in a hissy fit. There is value in expert judgement and let's face it, very few have the expertise of Wadhams." True, but the simple fact is that Wadhams is dead wrong on sea ice for this year, and probably the next few years as well. Another quote from A-Team: "Methane … the more coverage on that the better. The CO2 modellers are dead wrong here. Mocking and suppression of Shakhova and Semileto’s research, while citing bogus paleo — this has no place in science." How does he know the paleoclimate data is bogus? I've looked it over and found it quite convincing, as have distinguished scientists. And it's not just modellers questioning Wadhams and Shakhova on methane. Fellow observational scientists such as Ruppel, Yurganov, and Tumskoy have done so as well. Ruppel has done extensive work on the Beaufort Sea and hydrates there, so she can't be as easily dismissed as modellers. And even Shakhova has been more cautious than Wadhams on methane release. And I'll end on this note. That interview Jim cited with sea ice running out. Wadhams contradicts himself by saying discovery of methane plumes in the Laptev Sea are new with the expedition in summer 2014. Shakhova had already documented that in a 2013 study.
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
[Sure, Neven, I'll just use this one] You guys can't have it both ways. First, you put Wadhams up on a pedestal, and then you disparage the work of people such as Gavin Schmidt and Mark Serreze. You openly criticize data such as PIOMAS while championing a man whose conclusions on methane and sea ice are questioned not only by mainstream climate scientists, but fellow observational scientists such as Ruppel, Tumskoy, Yurganov, and even Shakhova. Wadhams may be accomplished, but that does not mean he is right. NSIDC, JAXA, PIOMAS, DMI, no matter which paramater you use, all support 2015 not being a new record minimum. Even with all the heat and everything, it is very hard to believe that the sea ice extent will go below 1,000, even below 2012. And Neven would second me on that, I would guess.
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
I couldn't but get in on the Wadham's talk going on amongst some of you. I will make a bet with those of you who think the sea ice will disappear this year or next. $20 that the Arctic sea does not disappear this year or next. In other words, above the 1000 threshold. [Bryant Morganelli, could you please not use different names to post? Thanks; N.]
Toggle Commented Jul 13, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
BryantFinlay is now following The Typepad Team
Jul 13, 2015