Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arctic Sea Ice blogpost: The Sea Ice Monster - Its A Scaly Thing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arctic Sea Ice blogpost: The Sea Ice Monster - Its A Scaly Thing

    Here's a very interesting post on the "Watts Up With That" blog called The Sea Ice Monster: it’s a scaly thing by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts. Some snips:

    Be it lice or ice, the scale of presentation matters.

    There is often criticism of cherry picking when it comes to time scales of climate data. In the case of satellite sea ice data presentation, both time scale and vertical scale are magnified. There’s only about 30 years of satellite ice data, whereas Arctic sea ice has been around for millions of years. Vertical scale is magnified to show the smallest fluctuations.
    and

    The experts said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2008, and that it would be ice free by 2013.

    “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly”

    NSIDC director, Dr. Mark Serreze also says this in this 5/20/10 Globe and Mail article:

    “We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can’t go back.”

    Dr. Serreze is still on the ‘death spiral’. He hasn’t changed his tune.

    While skeptics see cycles, by saying “we can’t go back” Dr. Serreze apparently assumes the linear trend will continue to zero.

    You can see from the graphs above how ridiculous those claims are. Even if the current trends continue, there is no reason to expect an ice free Arctic anytime in the next 50 years. And even more interesting to me is the fact that September, 2007 was really not that interesting. It was only 1.5 standard deviations off the trend line, i.e. almost following the 30 year trend.

    All of the the main Arctic ice experts underpredicted the 2009 minimum, except for WUWT – which predicted it correctly and early.
    The rest of the post is linked above. Lots of graphs to go along with the analysis. And a picture of a very ugly bug.
    Last edited by The Ibis; 25 May 10, 13:04.

  • #2
    A human head louse is an "Arctic sea ice monster"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      A human head louse is an "Arctic sea ice monster"?
      Errr... No.

      The analogy is in the misuse of scale to make things appear larger than they really are.

      Sea Level Change Since 1700: Sea level appears to be rising rapidly...






      Sea Level Change Since 18,150 BC: Sea level is barely changing...




      It's all a matter of scale. All of the sea level changes in the last 300 years fit into one dot on a graph of sea level changes over the last 20 million years...

      Last edited by The Doctor; 25 May 10, 15:16.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ah, I see...or the use of charts and graphs to do the same thing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Ah, I see...or the use of charts and graphs to do the same thing.
          This chart makes it appear that sea level is rapidly rising (unless you look at the six-inch ruler I attached to it)...





          This chart makes it look like sea level has hardly moved at all in the last 300 years...





          This chart shows that observed sea level changes over the last 300 years are totally insignificant...




          All three charts are correct... But only one is misleading, because it lacks context... Or at least it lacked context before I stuck a ruler next to it.

          In almost every picture that a geologist takes for a technical publication, there will be a camera lens cap, a ruler, a coin, a person or some other familiar item in the photo to provide a way to gauge scale. Without scale, the photo would lack context and have no scientific value.

          Climategate CRU publications like Mann's Hockey Stick not only lack scale and context, they actually go out of their way to distort scale and context.

          Every few months we're hit with some claim that Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record. The fact that the record only goes back to 1979 is usually glossed over. As is the fact that the amplitude of ice extent changes since 1979 is far less than can be inferred from shipping records, historical observations and geological data.

          The Arctic Sea Ice Monster is a Scaly Thing... Because it only exists due to an intentional distortion of scale on the part of a small group of agenda-driven scientists and a large group of Enviromarxist bureaucrats & politicians.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Still looks like a common louse to me...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Still looks like a common louse to me...
              Then, you understand the story about the Scaly Thing.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                No. I do understand the constant hyperbole, exaggeration, untruths and outright bull of the entire climatology scandal, however, but I wouldn't dignify it by insulting the lowly louse.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No. I do understand the constant hyperbole, exaggeration, untruths and outright bull of the entire climatology scandal, however, but I wouldn't dignify it by insulting the lowly louse.
                  Then you do understand that it's a "scaly thing."

                  The "constant hyperbole, exaggeration, untruths and outright bull of the entire climatology scandal" are the result of an intentional distortion of scale and context on the part of a few scientists and a lot of politicians.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The "constant hyperbole, exaggeration, untruths and outright bull of the entire climatology scandal" are the result of an intentional distortion of scale and context on the part of a few scientists and a lot of politicians.
                    They know very few of us are going to go up there and have a look for ourselves, so they're comfortable with outrageous lies.
                    "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
                    — Groucho Marx

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Then you do understand that it's a "scaly thing."

                      The "constant hyperbole, exaggeration, untruths and outright bull of the entire climatology scandal" are the result of an intentional distortion of scale and context on the part of a few scientists and a lot of politicians.
                      And a louse is a parasite. which can be easily killed. Your point?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        And a louse is a parasite. which can be easily killed. Your point?
                        My point is that the louse is not the point this thread or the article upon which the thread was started. The point of this thread is the misuse of scale as it is explained in the Watts Up With That article.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lying with statistics is nothing new. It's used all the time in advertising and political decision making. That's why it was nothing exceptional to the world when the IPCC started coughing up BS. The problem is that when it comes to "science" things can eventually be verified. Unlike the "based on propaganda" public opinion which is completely subjective and based on the "highest bidder" concept.
                          Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            My point is that the louse is not the point this thread or the article upon which the thread was started. The point of this thread is the misuse of scale as it is explained in the Watts Up With That article.
                            Might intertest you to know that the glaciers are almost completely gone from Glacier National Park...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Might intertest you to know that the glaciers are almost completely gone from Glacier National Park...
                              No... The glaciers aren't almost gone. Although they have been generally receding since 1840.

                              A couple of small glaciers were recently reported to have vanished... But they only "vanished" from the list of glaciers...
                              The latest two to fall below the 25 acre threshold were Miche Wabun and Shepard. Each had shrunk by roughly 55 percent since the mid-1960s.

                              LINK
                              50 years ago, those glaciers covered a whopping 40 acres... Now they cover just under 25 acres. 25.01 acres is a glacier... 24.99 acres is an ice field.

                              It's funny how when Creationists say that God created the Earth in its present form 6,000 years ago, they are ridiculed. But, when an ecologist says something even more moronic, the scientifically illiterate mainstram media just accept it as gospel...
                              "They've been on this landscape continually for 7,000 years, and we're looking at them disappear in a couple of decades," he said.
                              Real scientists (as opposed to ecologists) have very little knowledge of what the GNP glacial configuration looked like before the late 1700's. The most likely scenario is that these alpine glaciers formed after the Holocene Climate Optimum (~7,000 years ago); however the evidence of their extent prior to 1770 is unknown because the older terminal moraines were destroyed by rapid growth of the glaciers over a brief period of time...
                              Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines...

                              [...]

                              USGS
                              GNP was probably glacier-free from 10,000 years ago to about 7,000 years ago.

                              The glaciers at GNP advanced rapidly from 1770-1840. The geological evidence indicates that in 1840, the glaciers covered an anomalously large area relative to the rest of the Holocene (last 12,000 years).

                              Now... If Yahoo News had talked to the USGS instead of an ecologist, they might have learned this...
                              The alignment of decadal-scale climate anomalies over the early 20th century produced a period of glacial recession somewhat analogous to conditions experienced over the past few decades. The coupling of hot, dry summers with substantial decreases in winter snowpack (~30% of normal) produced dramatic recession rates as high as 100 m/yr from A.D. 1917-1941 (Pederson et al. 2004). These multidecadal episodes have substantially impacted the mass balance of glaciers since A.D. 1900.
                              The glacial retreat that has been witnessed at GNP over the last few decades has been very similar to the retreat that occurred from 1917-1941.
                              Had the ecologist been around in 1941, he would have been Chicken Little-ing just as much as he is now.

                              If the ecologist been around in 1841, he would have been Chicken Little-ing about the growth of the GNP glaciers.

                              One can only imagine the ecological Chicken Little-ing that would have occurred when this happened...



                              It's all a "scaly thing."
                              Last edited by The Doctor; 04 Jun 10, 14:38.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X