The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Checking sources should be as simple as ABC > Comments

Checking sources should be as simple as ABC : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 20/2/2018

It would be ridiculous if some of the catastrophic global warming so often reported by experts via our ABC were just a consequence of a new method of recording temperatures!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
@ Ant Although it is OFF TOPIC, you may be misleading to some readers so I’ll touch on an example in your preferred reading (Tamino? Really?). Sea ice cover is far from homogenous and in terms of extent (as it has recently become assessable in the satellite era), is given by most agencies as at least 15% of ice. The big scare from NSIDC et al started in 2007, and according to that agency, the seasonal minimum extent was then down to 4.2 Million Square Kilometres (3.4 MSK in 2012 & 4.6 MSK in 2017). I remember a related NASA study by virtue of the unfamiliar name of the team leader and here is an extract: “Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.” https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html I recall follow-up reports attributing storms to packing the ice in 2012, but don’t have time to relook. Quite apart from the fact that slow moving submarine tracks would have relatively trivial coverage versus MSK, ONE problem is that even if they are in the same spot as say a year or two ago, they cannot be looking at the same sample as before and thus it is impossible to make comparisons. I’m constantly amused by those clowns who try to sail to the North Pole and drill holes in the ice and whatnot to measure the effect of climate change. Next, we will be having scientists plotting trend graphs using only one empirical data point and filling in the absent observations with modelled values eh? I doubt if you will find the Ngheim et al study or the like on Tamino’s or any of your favourite blogs
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Friday, 23 February 2018 8:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer, (who has probably moved on....)

"Though they don't seem to be supportive of my call for an ABC Journo or two to look into the discrepancies.

They don't seem to be at all curious as to what the actual extent of global warming might be."

I think we can take it as given that there is no appetite to investigate these issues among those that have the ability to instigate such investigation. Only skeptics really care any longer about the way 'science' has been suborned into the task of remaking industrial society into the utopia imagined by the left.

I think Jennifer's experiences around Rutherglen ought to be seen as a watershed event. As prima facie case had been made that the BOM was deliberately or carelessly exaggerating the extent of warming in Australia. Some in the government who were sympathetic to the view that this issue ought to be fully resolved one way or t'other were moving toward an inquiry. But then it all feel apart. Greg Hunt moved to 'kill' the notion that the BOM should be required to demonstrate the accuracy of their numbers on the basis, it seems, that the reputation, deserved or otherwise, of the BOM shouldn't be jeopardised. An admission, it seems to me, that Marohasy at least had an arguable point. In a better world Hunt's name would be forever linked to this anti-intellectual travesty...instead he was promoted.

When Marohasy achieved her greatest success in the great salinity debate at the beginning of this century, there was a constituency that supported her endeavours. In the end, Marohasy was able to prevail by demonstrating that the data supported her case whereas the opponents were reduced to admitting that they'd been (wilfully or otherwise) relying on the wrong data. (Craik said something like...we weren't wrong, the data was wrong!!)

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 23 February 2018 8:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

But Marohasy was only successful because others had skin in the game. Ultimately groups like the Farmers Association were talking about spending $60 billion to fix a problem that was finally shown to not be a problem. When spending that sort of money, someone, somewhere is going to want to be bloody sure that its worthwhile. Again, in a better world, someone who saved the nation $60 billion would be a national icon while someone like Craik, rather that being "one of Australia’s leading independent public policy advisors, particularly on issues related to natural resource management" would be pondering whether to use the brush or the sponge to clean the dunnies at the local Aldi. But alas we don't live in that world.

But there is no constituency to look into the potential (probable?) corruption of science in regards to the weather records. Both sides of politics have hitched the wagons to the fight against CO2 and have zero interest in testing the validity of that fight. Those in the political sphere who want answers are few and hopelessly marginalised.

Equally in the wider community, there is now enormous sums of money dependent on the continued fight against CO2. Those who might have been expected to argue against the rush to industrial suicide have long since made their peace with it and have either moved on to other ventures or joined the carpet-baggers.

So, while I applaud JM for continuing to fight the good fight, I fear that it is, just now, fruitless. Too many people have too much at stake to allow a questioning of the consensus around warming in Australia. Those who are paying the price for all this lunacy through their electricity bills and lost manufacturing jobs have been fed voluminous disinformation such that they can't see the link between their problems and the fight against CO2.

There will come a time when these issues will be re-examined and the truth will be exposed. But, I'm afraid, that time isn't now.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 23 February 2018 8:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Fernley-Jones

I gave Tamino as a reference along with much stronger references to make the same point.
Storms have always been a variable from year to year in relation to sea ice extent in the Arctic and have a bearing on sea ice transportation.

Another factor to take into account is how sea ice is being undermined from below through relatively warm water.

So your remembered the NASA point about ice transportation; but, it holds no bearing on the situation. Neither of us know whether similar conditions might apply in one year, two years or more in relation to transportation of ice as happened in 2012. Just using a linear mathematical approach to when sea ice volume might be lost, it could easily be within 10 years. It can easily be worked out by taking volume as it was in 1980 with what it was in 2017.
Though it could be some years longer, or a few years less; we simply do not know.
There are many films showing the loss of sea ice from 1980 through till currently and they comment on the loss of multi year ice and thickness of ice being loss, which provides a further unknown into when sea ice will be lost. A factor though that suggests sooner than later.

Try debunking using references, rather than a memory of what might have been stated in past:

http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2015/2/article/23163

or:

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2011/01/arctic-sea-ice-satellites

As an extra you might try debunking:

http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf

It's an extremely long Report, the Executive study provides quite a lot of detail. The Report was put together by a number of Agencies and representatives from a number of countries which have some involvement with the Arctic. It is also extremely well referenced.

A NASA video showing how multi year ice is being lost. In a previous reference there was a comment about multi year ice has the strength of steel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
Posted by ant, Friday, 23 February 2018 10:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The desperate attempts to sway the conversation here away from thermometer errors like warped overlapping mulitiple time constants, asymetrical glass nonlinearity hysteresis, and wind speed effects show the warmist have no answers. If they have any understanding at all.

As for the "multiyear ice" furphies. That icbreaker tha sailed through must have been some time ago and the winter peak has not happened yet. From this picture below you can see NO mulit year or even no thick ice present at the north pole closer to the maximum. "On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste." Look at them kicking the thin ice off.

Also this one show lots of open water just a bit after the peak. "This photo of three submarines visiting the North Pole in May 1987 shows the whole area criss-crossed with open water leads before the summer had even arrived."
http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg

What about the northwest passage myths?
“Northwest Passage Opened; Tanker Near End of Trip Fulfilling a 500-Year Dream Northwest Passage Opened by Tanker Manhattan”
New York Times September 15, 1969,
“S.S. Manhattan churned through the Arctic ice this evening to become the first commercial ship to negotiate the Northwest Passage to Alaska.”

““From 1940 to 1942, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner St. Roch navigated the passage from west to east for the first time as a show of Canadian sovereignty over the North. At the end of its journey, the St. Roch turned around and went back, making it the first vessel to complete the journey in both directions.”

“In 1969, an American tanker, the S.S. Manhattan, made a voyage through the Northwest Passage without asking Canada’s permission.”
“In 1970, the ship made another trip through the passage. In the end, Canada imposed environmental regulations on trips through the passage, but the issue of who controlled the waters was not resolved.”
CBC news

This Arctic sea ice map shows clear water up both sides in September 1907. http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1907/1907_09.jpg
Posted by Siliggy, Friday, 23 February 2018 3:20:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The lies above about the recent Greenland ice are expose at this link below. As you can see it spend most of the last two years way ABOVE average. http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

"There are maps showing Greenland as two separate islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.
Not only this but most of the old Greenland maps show the coastline without ice and they depict rivers in the valleys, not glaciers, suggesting this area was mapped during a warmer period of the Earth's history - most likely during the warm period 5-7,000 years ago."
http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/page9.htm

Here is a far better picture of the Skate at the north pole near the sea ice yearly maximum. You can see the "multi year ice" is only about 200 MM (eight inches) thick. http://navsource.org/archives/08/575/0857824.jpg

Video of the Skate surfacing through the weak thin ice in 1959. It would be great to watch this on the ABC.
https://youtu.be/iv9NxOrKDow?t=45s
Posted by Siliggy, Friday, 23 February 2018 9:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy