Seems impossible. Prior to 1979 the ice caps were completely stable.
future mega-hurricane I93, the only one with any chance of making a US landfall….
…..just made an unprecedented unexplained………..poof
“future mega-hurricane I93, the only one with any chance of making a US landfall….
…..just made an unprecedented unexplained………..poof”
At least they still have “Tropical Storm” Franklyn to watch, now that NOAA have unilaterally extended the tropics to 40 degrees north, and future Major Hurricane Gert is currently developing just to the north of Spitzbergen.
“HOWEVER…ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS COULD BECOME MORE
FAVORABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS.”
could?…..in other words, they can’t even make a decent prediction over the next few days
It’s a projection.
call me crazy……
But they have no clue what the weather is going to do – in the next few days
They have no clue what it is going to do in three hours, let alone the next three days.
I was not aware they had recently named another cloud! The last I looked Accuweather was getting excited about “Possible Favorable” conditions after the 15th for the last two weeks of August.
However I checked the Conditions for West African Papilio and they have not come out of their chrysalis to flap their wing for the next round of storms.
I just looked and a “Tropical Storm” at 39 North. I must now live on the Equator and Lat must live in the Southern Hemisphere. When did the tilt happen? I must have been napping!
Well at least the NHC has sent the appropriate warnings to the fish in the path of Franklin! They will soon provide categories for TS. We will be seeing TS 1 to 5 and probably even Tropical waves can be evaluated for their strength.
I expect Tony’s dad complained to the Canberra Times that they had deliberately ignored all the other scientists who had given various other estimates of melting of between 1000 years and 1000000 years.
I doubt it. Back then there was no internet so it was too much trouble to go through every possible newspaper looking only for information that would support your bias.
When someone says, “unprecedented”, how many datum are needed to falsify their statement?
Paul Tony’s right to a point but I would add that even searching on the internet for confirmation bias is still too much work. The best and easiest way to confirm bias is to build a model with limited variables that can be manipulated to confirm the bias you seek. If pesky new variables pop up just ignore them and adjust your model to your pre-determined bias. No need to thank me for this time saving tip.
You have been taking lessons from the current crop of researchers in many of the scientific fields!
That’s EXACTLY what I meant
Do you even realize what you just admitted?
You’re recycling material now; didn’t you run this same newspaper piece back in May?
At least back in May you gave readers a little more of the truth: Dr. Carlson said it would take
hundreds of years for the melting to have much effect.
“melting at an astonishing an unexplained rate”
Tricky concept for the mentally challenged.
Did you consider the possibility that SG has tons of new visitors who weren’t here in May?The post seems to be getting a higher than normal response rate too so by my analysis SG seems to know what he is doing.
I tried JR at GS’s Pink Progress and between the repetition of mind numbing alarmism, the socialist brainwashing and end of the world cultism, I wanted to end my life. Compared to them SG is like shelter from the storm. 🙂
So are all your little factoids recycled? How many times on average do you repeat them?
Dr. Carlson was one of the pre-eminent arctic researchers of his era. Obviously the global warming that took place in the first half of the 20th century had observable consequences – and he observed them. What do you find odd about that?
So are you suggesting that glaciers in Norway did not lose half their size before 1952, or do you just prefer to close your eyes and ears to inconvenient information?
From Norwegian mountain glaciers in the past, present and future
Nesje, Bakke, Dahl, Lie, Matthews 2006
Cumulative glacier length variations of glaciers in southern Norway show an overall retreat from ∼AD 1750 to the 1930s–40s. Thereafter, most Norwegian glaciers retreated significantly. Short maritime outlet glaciers with a short response time (b10–15 yr) started to advance in the mid-1950s, whereas long outlet glaciers with longer frontal time lag (N15–20 yr) continued their retreat to the 1980s. In the1990s, however, several of the maritime glaciers started to advance as a response to higher inter accumulation during the first part of the 1990s. Since 2000 most of the observed glaciers have retreated remarkably fast (annual frontal retreat N100 m) mainly due to high summer temperatures.
Dr. Carlson’s observations made in the 1950’s are perfectly inline with our current understanding. As I said, he was a leading arctic researcher and it’s not surprising he got things right.
*Half of the glacial mass in Alaska and Norway was lost before between 1902 and 1952.* That is fifty years.
If there had been acceleration since 1952 (sixty years) there would be no glaciers in Alaska or Norway.
What a load of BS.
Yes, pretty much everything you write is a load of BS. There are plenty of systems that are non-linear. Or is that too complicated for you? Ever heard of the Small IceCap Instability? Do some research instead of talking out of your ass.
If half of the ice melted from 1902-1952, a constant rate of melt would have made all of the ice disappear by 2002. Accelerated melt would have made it disappear before 2002.
You are an idiot.
You display the fact that the understanding of glaciers has retreated significantly since the 50s. It is obvious to the casual observer that more was known in 1950 than you display in your posts! In general Climatology seems to follow the pattern of one step forward and twenty steps back. If the current trend continues science will return to preAlchemy days to the days of the temple priests.
Have you got to the sun circling the earth yet?
MD: – that is the province of people who DENY science – what a hoot 🙂
Steve – and if weather changes caused the glaciers to gain mass in some years? And if the system is non-linear? You assume linearity where little exists. You assume glacier volume is directly tied to temperature – it isn’t. You assume global temperature rise is directly tied to regional temperatures – it isn’t.
In other words – you haven’t a clue … but if you shout loud enough some people might believe you. The only thing not consistent with the science is your understanding of it … look at your acolytes, people like MD above who deny the science, then make remarks about the sun circling the earth – claims adhered to for centuries exactly by people like him – people who deny the science. Apparently he’s not even smart enough to realize the irony.
Oh, and you never answered my question about how many times do you recycle these little factoids? Or can’t you count past two?
What are you talking about? The trend is clearly non-linear and decreasing. If the rate of ice loss post 1952 was the same as pre-1952 there would be no glaciers left.
@Kevin: “people like MD above who deny the science, then make remarks about the sun circling the earth – claims adhered to for centuries exactly by people like him – people who deny the science”
Actually, the Geocentric model of the solar system proposed by Aristotle was the consensus view for centuries. Copernicus and Galileo, who challenged the model based on new scientific observations, were branded the deniers of their time. See the parallel today?
It must have flown right over your head! You are regressing at such a rate you may well have passed the geocentric phase and are getting close to the waring gods phase.
One step forward and one hundred back!
Good luck on your flight of fantasy!
A bit of a hint: The person that is denying science on this web site is you!!!!
You assume glacier volume is directly tied to temperature – it isn’t. You assume global temperature rise is directly tied to regional temperatures – it isn’t.
Dude, you’re mistaking Steven Goddard for the IPCC. They asserted all those things. Steven is making fun of them, and probably (by proxy) everyone who agrees with them. I know this is a difficult time for you, but try to have some perspective: the IPCC has stolen tens of millions of dollars to produce trivially falsified lies; Steven Goddard has taken precisely no money and written a weblog. Can you see the difference?
Pingback: 24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 10 | Watts Up With That?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,930 other followers