Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy Chemist Trashes NYT for 'Regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap of global warming'
Climate Depot ^ | August 19, 2009 | Martin Hertzberg

Posted on 08/19/2009 9:18:33 AM PDT by ClimateDepot.com

Navy Chemist Trashes New York Times for 'Continuously regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap of global warming propagandists'

'Your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy'

Guest Essay By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry. Hertzberg is featured on page 174 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming.

Dr. Hertzberg's August 19, 2009 Letter To The New York Times is Reprinted Below:

Distortions and misrepresentations of your coverage of global warming/climate change

I am a scientist who has studies the theory of human caused global warming for over 20 years, and it is both saddening and offensive to me as a scientist to see the Times continuously regurgitating the fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap it is being fed by know-nothing environmentalists and global warming propagandists in the Gore-IPCC-Hansen camp. As an example, consider the latest article in today's Times by Cornelia Dean and her regurgitation from NOAA's Climate Change Center:

"The agency also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third lowest on record after 2007 and 2006".

That description is a distortion and a complete misrepresentation of the actual data. For your benefit, I have attached the comprehensive, latest data record from Ole Humlum's web site under the heading of "Climate4you June 2009." From the data on page 11 of that site, one obtains the following record for ice coverage for the months of July from 2002 until 2009 (after converting square kilometers to square miles):

July of the year shown below Arctic Ice Coverage - Million square miles: 2002 3.3 2003 3.2 2004 3.5 2005 3.3 2006 3.4 2007 3.3 2008 3.2 2009 3.4

As the above table shows and as the graph from the "Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency" on p11 shows, there is nothing dramatic in the data.

NOAA's statement which claims a July 2009 ice coverage that is "12.7 percent below the 1979-2007 average" is the fraudulent comparison of a summer month ice coverage with a yearly average. All summer ice coverages for every year are markedly below their yearly average. The data show a 4 % decline in the yearly average Arctic ice cover from 2002 to 2007, and a 3 % increase in Arctic ice cover from 2007 to today.

If you look at the data shown for average atmospheric temperature shown earlier in the collection of data, it shows a significant decrease during the last decade or so. Data for sea level rise shown for the last 20 years or so, show a rate of rise that is about the same as it has been for the last 13,000 years, from when the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia began to flood as we transitioned from the last "Ice Age" to the current Interglacial Warming.

Your coverage of the issue of Global Warming / Climate change is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy.

It reminds me of the way your reporters such as Judith Miller simply regurgitated the Bush Administration's fear mongering clap trap about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You helped enable the Bush Administration in its disastrous invasion of Iraq without bothering to independently investigate the facts. You are now enabling the Gore-IPCC-Hansen fear mongers in the same way. The Waxman-Markey legislation for a "cap and trade" program, based on fraudulent science, has the potential to be as damaging to the Nation's economy as the Iraq war was to both our economy and our international reputation.

Is it too much to ask for the Times to diligently research the facts before simply regurgitating the propaganda it is fed?

The most egregious recent example on this issue is the article you published a few days ago on "Climate Change as a National Security". Not only was it based on the false premise that human activity is causing climate change, but you added insult to injury by publishing only those letters to the editor that commented favorably on that absurdity.

Attached is a series of web sites of "global warming skeptic/realists" like myself. The Oregon Petition has been signed by over 30,000 scientists like myself. Also attached is a talk of mine entitled "The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide" and a recent paper that appeared in Energy and Environment.

The latter can be simply summarized by paraphrasing the former President Clinton: "It's the clouds, stupid!". The so-called "greenhouse effect" was shown to be devoid of physical reality as early as 1909. If you or your science editor, or Friedman, or anyone else on your staff is really interested in the truth, I would be glad to provide you with the appropriate publications and proofs.

You, the House of Representatives, the President's Science Adviser, and his Secretary of Energy have been duped by the "Fraud of the Century"! I can only hope that any proposed legislation on this issue will die its well-deserved death in the Senate. But if it does, it will be for the wrong reason: not because of its phony science but because of its damaging economic impacts. The only sensible thing you have done recently was to publish the article in the Magazine section about Prof. Freeman Dyson's skepticism on the subject. But his skepticism was based on generalizations and his scientific intuition. There are abundant facts and scientific data that conclusively prove that the theory of human caused global warming is completely false. My attachments contain but the "tip of the iceberg" for those proofs.

I can only hope that my effort in composing this e-mail will not have been a complete waste of my time.

Sincerely,

Dr. Martin Hertzberg Copper Mountain, CO 80443


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; climatechange; fearmongering; globalwarming; nyt; science; scientists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2009 9:18:33 AM PDT by ClimateDepot.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
Your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy

Sorry, but there's a third option not listed: Willful distortions.

2 posted on 08/19/2009 9:20:30 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

Slap down!

Love this! Thanks for posting it.

3 posted on 08/19/2009 9:25:05 AM PDT by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

Truth means nothing to the left.


4 posted on 08/19/2009 9:26:18 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

Did NYT publish it?


5 posted on 08/19/2009 9:30:28 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
"I can only hope that my effort in composing this e-mail will not have been a complete waste of my time."

Thanks for trying.

6 posted on 08/19/2009 9:31:47 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com; Horusra; Delacon; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

7 posted on 08/19/2009 10:05:07 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Power is not alluring to pure minds." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

Wow-—that’s gonna leave a mark.


8 posted on 08/19/2009 10:06:07 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Remember, in what passes for minds among the Left, facts bow down before funding.


9 posted on 08/19/2009 10:20:27 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (Hey, Mr. Obama, please don't kill my gramma! NO on socialist healthcare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

It doesn’t appear to be in today’s paper. At least not in the version of the NYT published in Texas.


10 posted on 08/19/2009 10:29:17 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

This guy was doing OK on climate stuff until he decided to include his uninformed opinion about the Iraq war:

“It reminds me of the way your reporters such as Judith Miller simply regurgitated the Bush Administration’s fear mongering clap trap about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Clown hasn’t read Gen Georges Sada book about the Russians removing the Russian WMD’s as the war started. And we let them leave for Syria and Lebanon. We saw the truck convoy with satellites and ground troops.

Clown hasn’t read the account in the NY Times expressing concern about the Bush administration’s ability to properly dispose of the yellowcake uncovered in Iraq.

Clown also can’t connect the attempted overthrow of Jordan with two truckloads of chemical weapons from Syria.

Guess that stuff didn’t happen, selective memory is a disease. This guy has it.

And BTW I signed the Oregon Petition Project back around 2002, I was in around 15K signatures.

I have no respect for CLOWNS who fail to know all the facts and pretend they are “experts”.


11 posted on 08/19/2009 10:58:39 AM PDT by Eagles2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

could have skipped the Bush bashing. I didn’t care to read further.


12 posted on 08/19/2009 11:22:31 AM PDT by RDTF ("I'm pretty sure this is a 2 man job once the shooting starts")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

The letter did not appear in NYT, that is why he gave Climate Depot permission to print it. As for Bush bashing, it just shows that there are many “progressive” or liberal skeptical scientists out there.


13 posted on 08/19/2009 12:10:45 PM PDT by ClimateDepot.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
All Freepers should know about THIS and pass it on.
14 posted on 08/19/2009 12:14:30 PM PDT by bankwalker (In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bankwalker

I’ve only got a Master’s, the clowns with PhD’s were the clowns who couldn’t get a job. I got my Master’s and let my employer pay for it.

This CLOWN needs an anal exam, I’m betting you find a died in tbe wool socialist.

Note he’s touting his own website. Posted some truth and then comes in without any facts.

This CLOWN has only been around since May and seems to be a Hit and Run loser. Mixed messages, aka disinformation, inconsistent, unrealiable = AKA LIBTARD!


15 posted on 08/19/2009 1:15:07 PM PDT by Eagles2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
So, FReeper ClimateDepot.com, joined April 21, 2009: do I have the pleasure of addressing the honorable Marc Morano?

I sure hope so.

Because what you posted from Dr. Hertzberg is so easily refuted, so demonstrably wrong, that I wonder if the NY Times actually did publish the letter to show how someone with such credentials and such blusteriness can be so, so, so, wrong.

Easily refuted, like this:

Arctic sea ice extent tracking below 2008

"On July 21, Arctic sea ice extent was 8.28 million square kilometers (3.20 million square miles). This is 617,000 square kilometers (238,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007 and 1.36 million square kilometers (523,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Ice extent on July 21, 2009 remained 8.06% higher than the same day in 2007, yet was 2.44% below the same day in 2008 and 14.06% below the 1979-2000 average for that day."

The similarity of the 12.7% percent negative anomaly quoted for the month of July 2009 and the 14.06% negative anomaly cited for the day of July 21, 2009 demonstrates that the comparison was not to a yearly average, as Dr. Hertzberg contends.

I think I shall quote Dr. Hertzberg back to you, FReeper ClimateDepot.com: "Your coverage of the issue of Global Warming / Climate change is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy."

Actually, if you are running ClimateDepot.com, I think more accurately you just grab anything that seems to attack the scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming without filtering for quality. Hey, why should you change your modus operandi now?

Well, I doubt I shall correspond much with you here... but should we meet again... adieu, 'til next time.

16 posted on 08/19/2009 10:02:52 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
Ah, FReeper ClimateDepot.com; a hit, a palpable hit!

Looks like Dr. Hertzberg's letter has changed a bit on your site. Too bad we can read the original claptrap here, eh?

Here's what it says now, on ClimateDepot:

"NOAA's statement which a July 2009 ice coverage that is "12.7 percent below the 1979-2007 average." [Note: Dr. Hertzberg has amended his comments regarding "yearly" vs. "monthly" NOAA Arctic ice data.]"

I wonder if I had anything to do with that, or if some of your other astute readers emailed you. Well, anyway, the demonstration is nonetheless sound. Your aggregator has no quality filter.

Demonstrable lack of quality, part 2: the post from "theblogprof", a mechanical engineering professor at Oakland University, about methane hydrates.

Earth blows big fart, global warming alarmists run for cover!

(I could try to acquaint him with the Suess effect, but I doubt he's understand that it's about Hans Suess, not Dr. Suess.)

Contrast with: Methane hydrate stability and anthropogenic climate change

Section 2.3.1 and Figure 4. Why not tell the "blogprof" about it? But he's not a physical chemist familiar with thermodynamics, is he?

Keep 'em coming, FReeper ClimateDepot.com. The more junk posted on that site, the more demonstrable scientific incompetency, so easily refutable and so easily dismissed, the more you discredit yourself.

I guess I will be watching for your next post here, to see what other falsities and drivel you feel are worth foisting upon the good and upstanding citizens of FreeRepublic. But you wouldn't be in the business of misleading us, would you? Certainly no one with integrity would do that to honest American citizens.

17 posted on 08/20/2009 9:55:20 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
I was about to regret suspecting your true given name, FReeper ClimateDepot.com, until I discovered you'd tabbed yourself:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2284144/posts?page=27#27

"I worked at Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and that is merely a glitch in his testimony."

Just so you know; I dissected hapless Happer's testimony right here on FR. I did entertain some dissenting views in Happer's defense in subsequent discussion, by one of the rare FReepers who actually has a decent understanding of the issue, but nonetheless it was still fairly obvious that Happer is yet another example of someone borrowing arguments and demonstrating little grasp of the actual science, and acting like an expert in an area far out of his expertise. (Like many others of the 700+ you tout so widely.)

I see you've posted this now:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/confirmed-orbital-cycles-control-ice-ages

The IPCC has never been wrong on this issue, FReeper ClimateDepot.com.

What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?

"Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for."

Yet another example of the demonstrable incompetency of your climate news aggregator.

There may be some science involved in comparing the results of Drysdale et al. to those of Clark et al., but any such discussion would be way over your head, wouldn't it?

What will be your next example of demonstrable incompetency?

18 posted on 08/21/2009 9:00:56 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com
Your coverage of the issue of Global Warming / Climate change is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy.

Dr. Hertzberg is exposing his own naivete here. OF COURSE the New York Times understands that "global warming" is a con job, just as the UN does. "Global warming" has nothing to do with global warming - - it's all about global socialism. The New York Times is neither negligent, nor illiterate - - it is simply pushing the political agenda of the political party it represents.

Here is what James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, explained back in December, 2007:

"It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."

19 posted on 08/21/2009 9:15:44 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Unfortunately for that argument, in no way whatsoever has the science reversed on the “alarmist” crowd. That’s pablum and snake oil that FReeper ClimateDepot.com and the Heartland Institute want you and other like-minded conservatives to believe. They are misleading all of us on the actual state of the science to serve their own political ends.


20 posted on 08/22/2009 3:20:11 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
LOL, you're back!

It's "game over" for the "global warming" scumbags. From the very beginning they never had any science to support their con job, and now that real scientists are debunking their fabricated nonsense all around the globe, and their work is getting widespread exposure, even the slowest simpletons are catching on.

If you want to catch up on the issue yourself, go my FR homepage and scroll down. There are a bunch of links to help you do some homework and get a start on educating yourself on the subject.

Don't be dupe of the global socialists.
...You're welcome!

FRegards,
LH

21 posted on 08/22/2009 4:22:30 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
There are a bunch of links to help you do some homework and get a start on educating yourself on the subject.

Only one of your links has significant scientific content. The rest are chaff.

I wasn't really back. I was just posting to the moron with the FReeper nick "ClimateDepot.com". You got in the way, and you're echoing his emptiness.

I don't bother with trivialities anymore.

22 posted on 08/23/2009 10:23:24 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I don't bother with trivialities anymore.

You obviously don't have much use for facts, either.

23 posted on 08/23/2009 11:04:48 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I don't bother with trivialities anymore.

Trivialities like facts? You were wrong (a little wrong then, very wrong now) about the ice extent, having uncritically accepted whichever estimates suite your biases.


24 posted on 09/01/2009 4:18:43 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You were wrong (a little wrong then, very wrong now) about the ice extent

You will have to reacquaint me with the statement that I made which was "a little wrong then, very wrong now". I searched on 'cogitator' with 'sea ice' and couldn't find something that was clearly wrong about sea ice extent, so you'll have to show me.

I don't dispute that this year is holding on to a little more ice than the last two.

25 posted on 09/08/2009 9:32:05 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; SunkenCiv

Global Warming on the rocks....ping


26 posted on 09/08/2009 10:18:11 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Government needs a Keelhauling now and then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

THANKS, BFL


27 posted on 09/08/2009 10:24:10 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
As a note, there are some actual scientific experts who expect that Arctic sea ice summer minimum to get close to, or surpass, the 2007 minimum, despite the cool La Nina year conditions thus far. The reason is the marked loss of multi-year ice that happened last year. The refreeze is all "vulnerable" first-year ice.

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2014827/posts?page=44#44 (may 2008)

Turns out your "actual scientific experts" were wrong. And from early this year:

I think Gore was a bit bold (for anybody reading, he's predicting the disappearance of the polar ice cap in SUMMER in five years), but I think that every following summer we are going to see a new minimum sea ice extent and volume, or values very close to the minimum, as happened this year.

from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2167349/posts?page=29#29 (jan 2009)

I will gladly admit that I glom onto the opposite in scientific hypotheses than you. And if someone predicts a decrease in ice for 2010, I will read their rationale and look for the koolaid stains. The only guarantee is that one of us will be wrong every year, perhaps it's my turn next year.

28 posted on 09/09/2009 3:10:25 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

......Willful distortions. ......

There are layers. The actual author is ignorant. The editors use the ignorance to willfully distort the debate.


29 posted on 09/09/2009 4:53:08 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . fasl el-khital)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClimateDepot.com

bump to the top


30 posted on 09/09/2009 7:52:41 AM PDT by GOPJ (Who received the Van Jones FBI reports and who over-ruled the findings? fr:thouworm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK; 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; ...
Thanks BIGLOOK and neverdem.
 
Catastrophism
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

31 posted on 09/09/2009 3:25:41 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: palmer; ClimateDepot.com
palmer, you had me scared there. I thought I'd actually said something erroneous!

As a note, there are some actual scientific experts who expect that Arctic sea ice summer minimum to get close to, or surpass, the 2007 minimum, despite the cool La Nina year conditions thus far. The reason is the marked loss of multi-year ice that happened last year.

and

but I think that every following summer we are going to see a new minimum sea ice extent and volume, or values very close to the minimum, as happened this year.

When I assess that the sea ice minimum extents for 2008 and 2009 have only been surpassed by 2007 (thank you for the illustrative data on that point), then "close to" or "close to the minimum" is hard to construe as an incorrect statement. I'm acquainted with the concept of interannual variability -- as well as the unreliability of short-term predictions for a multidimensional system.

And I'm sure you've read this:

Satellites and Submarines Give the Skinny on Sea Ice Thickness

"To extend the record, Kwok and Drew Rothrock of the University of Washington, Seattle, recently combined the high spatial coverage from satellites with a longer record from Cold War submarines to piece together a history of ice thickness that spans close to 50 years. Analysis of the new record shows that since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent. "It's an astonishing number," Kwok said. The study, published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time."

as well as

"In 2008, Kwok and colleagues used ICESat to produce an ice thickness map over the entire Arctic basin. Then in July 2009, Kwok and colleagues reported that multiyear 'permanent' ice in the Arctic Ocean has thinned by more than 40 percent since 2004. For the first time, thin seasonal ice has overtaken thick older ice as the dominant type."

If I think this research might have a modicum of truth value to it, am I again guilty of uncritically accepting another estimate that merely suites my biases?

You know what, maybe I am. Unless JPL makes the actual article available for free, I probably won't be able to read the actual paper for a couple of weeks. So I included ClimateDepot.com for this reply. He's good at finding rebuttal articles. Maybe he could post a link to one here to keep us fair and balanced.

"He's intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

32 posted on 09/10/2009 9:22:10 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Interesting that you would link a story with a picture of polar bears walking across the ice. Is that part of the science?

Analysis of the new record shows that since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent. "It's an astonishing number," Kwok said.

It's even more astonishing that the ice increased from the 1940's through the 1970's. Or maybe not so astonishing:

As usual the current decadal decrease (and current yearly increase) is mostly a function of natural variability.

well thanks for coming back and gracing us with your presence. You can go back to the koolaid forum now. Making any progress over there with your "conservative" solutions to AGW?

33 posted on 09/11/2009 3:04:02 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Interesting that you would link a story with a picture of polar bears walking across the ice. Is that part of the science?

Sorry. Science Daily didn't have polar bears. I went to the source. JPL added the polar bears, I guess.

It's even more astonishing that the ice increased from the 1940's through the 1970's. Or maybe not so astonishing:

I assume that because sea ice extent was relatively constant up until the 80s, sea ice volume and sea ice thickness probably were, too. It's basically impossible to find out if that's true or not.

The way I see it, either this mostly natural variability, in which case we have about an even chance of it getting cool enough for the ice to add volume over the next few years, or it's being forced primarily in one direction, in which case the odds of continuing to lose ice volume over time are higher than the odds of continuing to add ice volume over time. It certainly won't surprise you to find out that I think this isn't all natural variability and we're headed in the warming direction. I'm sorry if that makes you classify me as a koolaid drinker, but that continues to be how I interpret the scientific results. As I've noted numerous times before, it would be wonderful indeed if the mainstream scientific viewpoint on this issue is wrong. I literally hope that they and I are wrong. But I cannot realistically believe that the science is wrong and that therefore I'm wrong.

However, I will definitely grant the possibility that the Sun is behaving peculiarly, and if that persists, that might cause some interesting effects. I still think that despite a quiet Sun it's possible to set a new global surface temperature record -- this year could seriously test that possibility. Out of curiousity, what do you think that would mean? What would it do to this "decade of cooling" concept that is so skeptically popular?

Can't resist quoting Patrick Michaels at this point: "Michaels pointed out that the surface records show average global temperatures increasing at a steady rate of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade since 1977. He also hastened to put the kibosh on recent assertions that "global warming stopped in 1998." While global average temperatures have been essentially flat since 1998, Michaels argued that natural variations in the climate mask any increases due to greenhouse gases. In particular, cooler waters in the Pacific ("La Nina") and lower solar activity have conspired to drop average global temperatures. When these trends reverse, average global temperatures will rapidly rise to reveal the established long term man-made warming trend of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade." (This was from the International Conference on Climate Change a year ago, as described by Ronald Bailey.)

Is Michaels drinking the koolaid too?

You can go back to the koolaid forum now. Making any progress over there with your "conservative" solutions to AGW?

Forgive me for not having any idea of what you're talking about here.

I'll end on this note:

Source: Cryosphere Today

34 posted on 09/11/2009 8:38:02 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
What's your ‘take’ on the Mann Hockey stick that I think was featured prominently in IPCC AR1 (and has received very little attention since)?

Do you also accept a similar (but not the same as Mann's Hockey stick) the prominent graphic that Algore uses in his movie? (It may be referred to as Dr Thompson's Thermometer graph?)

35 posted on 09/11/2009 8:52:07 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Source: Cryosphere Today
Post #34
From the graph posted in #34 above, it looks like the trend has turned around ... no?

In any case, this was in the news just today (?):

NOAA Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

And, as we all should know, "weather, not climate". Integrate enough of this 'weather' over time, and you have climate.

BTW, how close are we to *any* of the several James Hansen 1998 model 'predictions' due to the continued increase in CO2?

The worst case? The best case? ???

Has he tropsphere in the troics shown any warming?

Have the poles showed any warming?

Where was it the AGW crowd SAID the signs would show up first? It's been 11 years since 1998 ... we should be able to address some of these points by now ...

36 posted on 09/11/2009 9:16:03 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Nice hockey stick (cryosphere today graph). Do you know how they derived their hockey stick? Aircraft or ship measurements? Proxies maybe? No, they used a climatological model to derive ice extent measurements using satellite era data.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt

Sea ice extent data is provided by Kelly, et. al. 1988. The ice extent data is compiled for the months April-August for the majority of the period 1901-1956.

The Kelly 1988 data comes from the Walsh 1978 data

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_WALSH_CHAPMAN_SEAICE.html

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00799_arctic_southern_sea_ice/index.html

1871-1900: A monthly climatology based on Walsh data for 1901-1930 was used, to which spatial variability was added using a 1979-1996 passive microwave bias corrected data set. A climatology based on the passive microwave data defined typical monthly concentrations. Where Walsh data grid cells had concentrations of 100%, and the passive microwave climatology showed concentrations of at least 90%, the climatological concentration was substituted.

1901-1978: Primarily the Walsh data set, with spatial variability added as above. Note that U.S. National Ice Center (NIC) charts weigh heavily in the Walsh data beginning in 1973.

In contrast

Here's some real world measurements from the Russian side of the Arctic taken from published papers explaining those measurements:


Russian historical records of arctic sea-ice extent and thickness extend back to the beginning of the 20th century. There are several distinct periods in the history of Russian sea-ice observations. Occasional ship observations of summer ice edge started in the first decade of the 1900s when the first Russian hydrographic surveys and commercial shipping routes along the Siberian coast began. These data have been analyzed by the Russian climatologist Vize (1944). Some data for this period have also been obtained from Russian navigation books. Starting in 1929, when the Soviet Polar Aircraft Fleet was created, aircraft-based observations began, which improved the quality of the data substantially. However, systematic aircraft and ship observations of sea ice from the Kara Sea through the Chukchi Sea began only in 1932, when the Northern Sea Route was created. There were information gaps during World War II (1942-45). The missing data have been reconstructed using statistical (regression-like) models relating atmospheric processes (SLP gradients and SAT) to ice extent (Kovalev and Nikolaev 1976; Yulin 1990). Aircraft ice-edge observations continued until 1979, when the satellite era began, but until recently a combination of satellite and aircraft summer ice-edge observations was used. Since 1990 all ice-extent observations have been satellite-based.

The choice is between hockey stick ice from a temperature-based model of theoretical ice extent, or non-hockey-stick real world measurements of the actual ice extent.

37 posted on 09/12/2009 12:18:08 PM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: palmer
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

says

"These data are a compilation of data from many sources integrated into a single gridded product by John Walsh and Bill Chapman, University of Illinois. The sources of data for each grid cell have changed over the years from infrequent land/sea observations, to observationally derived charts, to satellite data for the most recent decades. Temporal and spatial gaps within observed data are filled with a climatology or other statistically derived data."

Your reference says:

"The missing data have been reconstructed using statistical (regression-like) models relating atmospheric processes (SLP gradients and SAT) to ice extent (Kovalev and Nikolaev 1976; Yulin 1990)."

The choice is between hockey stick ice from a temperature-based model of theoretical ice extent, or non-hockey-stick real world measurements of the actual ice extent.

Seems like both groups had to resort to using models to fill data gaps.

By the way, what are the units on those figures?

38 posted on 09/12/2009 2:02:33 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
NOAA Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

And, as we all should know, "weather, not climate". Integrate enough of this 'weather' over time, and you have climate.

Indeed.

BTW, how close are we to *any* of the several James Hansen 1998 model 'predictions' due to the continued increase in CO2?

Your question is too broad to be answerable.

39 posted on 09/12/2009 2:27:09 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
What's your ‘take’ on the Mann Hockey stick that I think was featured prominently in IPCC AR1 (and has received very little attention since)?

The issue was handled well by the NRC.

Do you also accept a similar (but not the same as Mann's Hockey stick) the prominent graphic that Algore uses in his movie? (It may be referred to as Dr Thompson's Thermometer graph?)

Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer

Thanks for asking.

40 posted on 09/12/2009 2:33:04 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The issue was handled well by the NRC.
What is your interpretation?

What did you take-away from it?

41 posted on 09/12/2009 2:42:39 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Gotten mean, have you?


42 posted on 09/12/2009 3:28:49 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
By the way, what are the units on those figures?

The paper explaining the chart is in a PDF link on this page: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/ice/index.php and it says:

ice-extent anomalies ( 1000 km 2 )

Yes, both used models, but the Univ of Alaska folks just filled in a few missing years. The Univ of Illinois doesn't have any explanation of measurements before 1953 except the cryptic reference to the Walsh models.

43 posted on 09/12/2009 6:33:57 PM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Gotten mean, have you?

People deserve a reply. Baiting tactics don't necessarily deserve much of one.

44 posted on 09/12/2009 9:22:48 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: palmer
The Univ of Illinois doesn't have any explanation of measurements before 1953 except the cryptic reference to the Walsh models.

The Walsh documentation says it is "infrequent land/sea observations" and then "observationally derived charts". That's why I linked to it.

It also says this:

"1. Danish Meteorlogical Institute
2. Japan Meteorological Agency
3. Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO)
4. Kelly ice extent grids (based upon Danish Ice Charts)
5. Walsh and Johnson/Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center
6. Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center Climatology
7. Temporal extension of Kelly data (see note below)
8. Nimbus-7 SMMR Arctic Sea Ice Concentrations or DMSP SSM/I Sea Ice Concentrations using the NASA Team Algorithm

Not to belabor the point, but the main thing that's changed in the Arctic that would affect sea ice extent is the length of the melt season. And there are a host of indicators that could be consulted indicating that Northern Hemisphere winters since the 1970s have been decreasing in "intensity". I.e., they've basically been trending shorter and warmer. Thus, the Arctic summer has been trending longer and warmer. (Lest I get brickbats for saying that, there's obviously a lot of variability!) So... if since the end of the LIA, NH summers and winters were basically (within bounds) stable in length and intensity, and then there's been a shift, we'd expect to see sea ice extent be somewhat stable until the 70s and then expect to see a decline.

Which we do.

The reason I said all that is: even though observationally it was difficult to get good sea ice extent numbers in the first half of the century, it's less difficult to assess the meteorologic climatology. Is there anything in that which would indicate any major effects on sea ice extent? (I don't know; I just tend to doubt that there is.)

With that, I must depart for slumberland. Got to watch "300" for the first time tonight, and then I watched "Chronicles of Riddick" AGAIN while posting on commercial breaks. G'night; I'll still respect you in the morning, palmer.

45 posted on 09/12/2009 10:07:49 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
And there are a host of indicators that could be consulted indicating that Northern Hemisphere winters since the 1970s have been decreasing in "intensity". I.e., they've basically been trending shorter and warmer. Thus, the Arctic summer has been trending longer and warmer. (Lest I get brickbats for saying that, there's obviously a lot of variability!)

And what about the variability before the 70's?

So... if since the end of the LIA, NH summers and winters were basically (within bounds) stable in length and intensity, and then there's been a shift, we'd expect to see sea ice extent be somewhat stable until the 70s and then expect to see a decline.

Have you looked at other indicators for the early 20th century and determined that they were flat like the hockey stick handle from Walsh and Kelly? The Arctic air temperature chart I posted up thread doesn't say that. It's easy to focus on the post-70's with tons of instrumental measurements but not so easy to dig up accurate depictions of early 20th century climate change. You can just assume that it was stable and leave it at that.

46 posted on 09/13/2009 7:49:44 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: palmer

meant to say “can’t just assume”, but either way it’s up to you.


47 posted on 09/13/2009 7:51:48 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Even “Morono?”


48 posted on 09/13/2009 8:22:30 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Eagles2003
This CLOWN has only been around since May and seems to be a Hit and Run loser. Mixed messages, aka disinformation, inconsistent, unrealiable = AKA LIBTARD!

Yeah, definitely a guy the 'tards could love. Fer sure! Just ask John Kerry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

49 posted on 09/13/2009 8:44:46 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Even “Morono?”

Inaccurate insult. ClimateDepot.com's actually very smart. I should have come up with something more refined. I wonder if he has a mistress... because I'm sure not ever embracing his principles.

50 posted on 09/13/2009 10:08:44 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson