Jennifer, just give us one credible reason why the ice sheets on Greenland are melting at the present rate which is making both the fishermen and the farmers so happy.

David

We learned some years after the fact, academics employed by the asbestos industry and big tobacco were telling their masters one thing and the public another and for decades!

Similarly, we're informed that the same thing has been occuring in the fossil fuel industry Jennifer, and for literal decades. As various academics have put more value on their grants or cash for comment than the facts, even as they accuse the 95% of their fellows of being frugal with the truth!?

Some of those irrefutable facts are. The climate is subject to normal cyclical variations.

When the sun wanes the joint cools sometimes ushering in an ice age of indeterminate length, with advancing glacial and polar ice and advancing shorelines. [Our continental shelf was once nearly completely exposed and stretched nearly all the way to Timor!]

Conversely when it waxes the joint warms with retreating polar and glacial ice, retreating shorelines and eroded beaches/coastal real estate! [Our continental shelf now under 200 approx, metres of seawater!]

During El Nino years there can be regional warming and reduced rainfall. Conversely During La Nina episodes the opposite is par for the course.

And an elliptical orbit around our sun imposes relatively minor variations each way, through the course of one full orbit or year.

What can't happen Jennifer is a warming trend during a waning phase of the sun, as ours has been in since the mid seventies (NASA) Moreover 2017 was the third hottest year on record even though we were in a La Nina episode. Even as CO2 was well into completely uncharted territory!

With 2014 being one of the hottest ever recorded? And part of a warming trend that has caused ambient temperatures to have risen nearly 1 full degree C above the preindustrial average?

New methods of recording temperatures may have made such recording even more accurate? I take you don't have an issue with that or the inherent integrity of NASA's scientists?

Please feel free to name those you believe are part of a quite massive international conspiracy to hoodwink the public? For what? Money?
Alan B.

There is nothing more fundamental to understanding climate variability and change than the integrity of the temperature data. So, why won't the Bureau publish the reports that presumably show measurements from the new electronic probes are equivalent to measurements from old style mercury thermometers?

And as regards who funds my work... I'm wholly funded by the B.Macfie Family Foundation which is administered by a retired medical doctor. Neither I, nor Dr Macfie, have anything to gain financially in any of this. As regards energy companies they are all profiting from the subsidies... as the bootleggers were aided by the Baptists.

Meanwhile our electricity prices have doubled while China builds 500 more coal fired stations. The high priests get rich and the gullible tax payers pours billions into unreliable renewables. How dumb can academia and the abc make people?

It would be hard to find a less bias-free agenda than the ABC's. The Nazi Party, perhaps? Sister bigot, the SBS, is even worse (probably Nazi level). There are some good programs on SBS, but an increasing number of commercial breaks push illegal immigration, 'changes to culture in the work place' – do an online brainwash and 'learn how to comply with the anti-'Australianism, 'Gimme your money' for minorities in Myanmar, etc., etc.

The Left wing media, government as well as private, is shockingly bigoted and ultra Left wing; we have always known it, so why are do people seem surprised about it and keep on dragging it up? If there is something you want to watch, record it and fast-forward through the bigotry. You miss out on the ABC's self-advertising (of Left wing rubbish programs) and you miss out on commercial sponsors' ads on SBS. Companies might start to complain or, better still, withdraw their their sponsorship and and transfer it to the commercial channels who are interested in entertainment, not political brainwashing. The ABC's online business is also there to be ignored, too. They get a billion a year from us now; don't give them any more money.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology? Another incompetent government organisation gobbling up a lot of our money, and often slippery when in comes to climate (they are not that good at forecasting weather either).

Who says the ice sheets on Greenland are melting ? The ABC?

I've laid out some irrefutable facts for you Jenny so why won't you deal with them as opposed to obsessing over newer more accurate temperature measurement methods.

Mercury is not accurate to the ninth degree but varies with variable atmospheric pressure. Deal with it and move on Jenny, we've had quite enough prevarication and climate change denials from you for one lifetime.

So Where does the Dr's foundation get their funds from? Peabody?
Alan B.

I've laid out what I believe is how we might get our power bills down to less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour and with proven road tested technology.

Have no interest in subsidising renewables ever and given they're getting so cheap? Ought be able to compete in an open market that includes thorium, Jenny.

Suggest you fact check by reading Ivy league Professor (ret) Economist Robert Hargreaves's book, Thorium cheaper than coal, where he quotes $00.1.98 as the median PKH. And carbon free thorium as reliable base load power.

Energy that cheap, would also put most coal fired projects out of business unless they were subsidised or otherwise protected from market forces?

It would also massively turbocharge our economy while simultaneously mitigating against man made climate change!

You could also listen to former NASA scientist and nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen, who is one of a handful of scientist given unfettered access to all the records and notes of the scientists, who ran and thoroughly road tested the walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactor at Oak Ridge Tennessee, way back in the fifties and sixties, without accident or incident. And indeed some of those scientists!

And very timely as "they" were about to destroy those same valuable records pertaining to literal years of valuable research! And here we were thinking it was only Nazis that burned books/knowledge?

Finally, but only if you want the plain unvarnished truth Jennifer? Read Torium, Super fuel, subtitled, green energy, by prize winning investigative Journalist Richard Martin. And who pulls no punches in putting some of the fallacious claims emanating from big nuclear, back in their box?

As they see their own demise in the acceptance and rollout of Thorium, the most energy dense material on the planet and so abundant as to light it all up for thousands of years.

Nobody, but nobody, should be protected from free and fair competition!
Alan B.

Alan B

I'm puzzled by your comment: "Mercury is not accurate to the ninth degree but varies with variable atmospheric pressure."

There is no doubt that modern probes are inherently more accurate and responsive than mercury in glass, the latter being dependent on the human eye and sometimes in the past read deliberately to the nearest whole or half degree, and dubiously to a normally intended tenth of a degree (not easy). Metrification in 1972 and conversion from F (more commonly read to integers and half-degrees) to C is another issue. All PART of the calibration etcetera problems that Dr Marohasy has touched on.

Could you please let us know how the mercury is affected by atmospheric pressure. It is an incompressible fluid and the variation in atmospheric pressure in percentage terms is also rather small. Does a tiny change in atmospheric pressure alter the thermal properties of the metal or compress the glass tube and change its bore diameter or length?

Of course there are substantial other variables that alter the response times of most temperature sensors, different types differently, wind speed being a big one.

Either warmth thaws or melts ice and snow, or it doesn't.
Most people would agree that it does.

While natural variability does occur in the Arctic, it does not explain the trend lines going back to 1980 when satellites began providing data. Prior to satellites, some data was supplied by submarines.
There are continual reports over many years about multi year ice being lost.
There are reports about sea ice thickness decreasing.
THe volume of sea ice is also going down.

For the first time ever a tanker, the Eduard Toll was able to transit the Arctic in the winter of 2017/18 without the use of an ice breaker. The Eduard Toll would not have been able to travel the Arctic without major changes in Arctic sea ice.

As Alan stated, Greenland is melting away.

https://interestingengineering.com/lng-tanker-crosses-arctic-in-winter-without-an-ice-breaker-for-the-first-time

How that can be explained by deniers?

I humbly suggest you do what your article suggests Marohasy people not into your version of Right wing IPA groupthink
You typical of the people who back you, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of the pig ignorant IPA, I find it funny how all the nutters come out of Queensland you Hanson,Joyce ect
The IPA,how do you describe a beast with no creditably,dotted with fellows? one of whom Nahan by name one of the illustrious IPA who is not unknown to Marohasy,along with Barnett led the Lib to a huge electoral defeat in WA
What you burble on about consists of IPA/Koch funded rubbish & when you get published you get taken apart by people who actually have some idea what they are talking about,which you writing/talking on climate change you dont
All of the IPA fellows what qualification do you have to have to be an IAP fellow,lots of money,an undying love of Murdoch the phone hacker what ever happened to your partner in BS at News Lloyd

For a completely different perspective why not read two essays titled There Is No Time Left, and Global Warming Zaps Oxygen by Robert Hunziger.

ANT,

What is typically misleading in your assertions is that the LNG tanker that you refer to is not the first and that IT IS AN ICEBREAKER VESSEL in itself, recently built in Korea, and as intended it does not require to be escorted by a conventional icebreaker. Educate yourself by searching this text:

"Launch of Teekay’s First Icebreaker LNG Carrier"

John Ryan, I don't see any discussion of the science in your rant. Are you aware that Dr Marohasy is well published in the scientific literature, and do you have any ability to make a sensible critique of her individual and co-authored scientific work?

DAFFY DUCK,

Why not recommend something relevant to Dr Marohasy’s Post such as this by Dr. James P. Wallace III and 9 (nine) other PhD’s (2017):

“On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding"

Thanks Bob.

It does appear that 'the opposition' can't play the ball, so they are attacking the woman.

Bottomline, Daffy and Co who have posted above at this thread are not disputing that the Bureau may be exaggerating global warming trends.

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.

Alan B. Always a pleasure to watch people like you shoot you yourself in the foot while your foot is in your mouth. Well done exposing another reason why the platinum resistance thermometer is not compatible for either trend line calculation or homogenisation with mercury in glass thermometers.
Bob Fernley-Jones What Alan B is failing to describe is an error in reading caused by a non-linearity problem with the old thermometers. The thermometer glass is elastic and slowly malleable. The non-linearity is partly reversible like (hysteresis) but partly permanent (calibration). So Alan B has done a wonderful job proving Jennifer to be correct again. This error is likely to have caused old thermometers to read a narrower diurnal range. So the older maximums should be adjusted up.
Badly specified and designed PRTD housings can also cause hysteresis and this is why such designs should always be done by trade engineers experienced in construction and calibration of thermal materials with electronics and never by backyard amateurs such as climatologists. The obvious result of such design failure would be years of perverted and confused data.

Bob, we used to measure vacuum with inches of mercury, because it's an incompressible liquid. Not so the air in the tube which has to compress or expand with temperature changes.

Moreover glass is not as rigid and inflexible as some might think, but nonetheless preferred for its thermal conductivity.

The problem is in the glass and tiny microscopic flaws usually becoming evident, with the first large compression of air within the tube, or conversely first large contraction by the mercury inside a near vacuum.

That's why it's hard to find mercury thermometers in use almost anywhere today.

Why, even hospitals and ambos have gone largely electronic because of accuracy and safety concerns. A glass tube with a tiny microscopic post production hole, although uncommon, not unknown, is therefore subject to changing atmospheric pressure.

Moreover we have moved into the 21st century and more modern and accurate means of ascertaining temperature changes.

I find Jennifer's, persistent denial of manmade climate change both strange and unusual and just not subject to normal scientific rigor.

And at complete odds with the overwhelming bulk of the scientific community and some conveniently excluded facts.

Tag team all you like, that won't change my view on Jennifer and her patently ideologically motivated claims?

She has yet to address any of the relevant facts I've raised, probably won't? And supposedly expects to get by with more, par for the course denial or obdurate obfuscation?
Alan B.

I suggest supporters of Dr.Marohasy read the attached critique of her work on climate change before you get too enthusiastic about her pronouncements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy#2017_GeoResJ_manuscript

David

Bob Fernley-Jones

Two references I have sighted stated quite clearly that the Eduard Toll sailed without the need of an ice breaker. They should have added that the tanker was built as an ice breaker. I was wrong.

However, that does not mean that Arctic ice trend lines are wrong, they have been created over decades. That was the point I was making.

An article about an archeological site at Utqiagvik, formerly named Barrow, is illustrative of how quickly changes are happening ... the 'dig" had to be carried out very quickly due to thawing permafrost and consequent erosion. Permafrost does not thaw unless there is sustained warmth for a lengthy period.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30112017/alaska-global-warming-archaeology-permafrost-history-artifacts-sea-ice-hunting-whaling-traditions?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=b507e160f8-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-b507e160f8-327850601

The greening of tundra areas, roads slumping, buildings breaking down, and ponds forming are other factors displaying the thawing of permafrost.

I find this an amusing point: "ABC journalists will justify the claim with reference to sourcing information from only the most trustworthy of institutions and experts. The problem of course, is that so many of our institutions have lost-their-way, and so many of our experts take a wholly partisan approach to the most controversial of issues – particularly global warming."

The IPA is an extreme partisan Agency, promoting an extreme neo-con ideology.

A narrative to reinforce the comments about thickness of sea ice in the past and the loss of sea ice that has happened since. Also interesting comment about the strength of multi year sea ice, much of which has disappeared to a large extent since.

http://www.farnorthscience.com/cold-quests/breaking-arctic-ice/

I can write about sea ice for my next article - the Antarctic is interesting it had been gaining ice for about 3 decades and suddenly lost a lot in early 2016.

But the article that begins this thread is about temperatures and how they are measured by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology... and I'm curious that so few prepared to get behind my calls for the parallel data to made availabe... there must be internal reports that show how comparable measurements from the new electronic probes in Automatic Weather Stations are with measurements from the old style mercury therometers. Why isn't this information made available?

Of course, fundamental to understanding climate change is the integrity of the temperature record. The Bureau put out a state of the climate report at the beginning of each year... most recently claiming a 0.95 degree Celsius rise in temperatures since 1910. How much of this could be due to a change in the measurement system?

As a published climate scientist I'm concerned.

The usual problems with articles here trying to deal with a contentious subject have arisen. The various trolls try to distract from the actual issue. Jennifer's article is about the accuracy of temperature measurements in Australia. So it has nothing to do with the Arctic, but a couple of posters want to bring that in anyway.

She is not denying that temperature is increasing, but she wants a credible handle on what that increase is.

There is no doubt that the BOM is not using the equipment as specified, and that their practices will artificially increase the highest temperature recorded for a spot. There is no argument with that. It's just basic maths.

So those posters who throw in irrelevancies like Arctic ice, or air pressure (thermometers aren't open to the air, so that one is a doozy) either don't understand the issue - probable - or want to distract - even more probable.

And underlying it is a drive to win an argument, at the expense of truth, if that is what it takes. No wonder our democracy is such a mess. Don't blame the politicians. Blame the activists that we see so frequently on sites like this.

Alan (Verbal Diarrhoea) B says:” We learned some years after the fact, academics employed by the asbestos industry and big tobacco were telling their masters one thing and the public another and for decades!”
Do you have a source for this rubbish, VD, r do you fabricate it yourself?Does it ever occur to you to give a link to something whic supports your outlandish assertions? Putting NASA in brackets after a spray of your odious nonsense merely alerts us further to your ignorance.
To add insult to injury, you say “I've laid out some irrefutable facts for you Jenny so why won't you deal with the”. What nonsense.
Your posts really are a disgrace, Alan.

The flea again uses the invalid term “denier”
As Joanne Nova points out, even the climate fraud supporter John Cook admits that the term has no validity. She says:”So he finally admits the banal, that there is no rational explanation for calling skeptical scientists “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers”. Bravo. (No one denies that climate changes, or thinks the Earth has no climate.). But this is terminology he uses everywhere, and it describes a group of people that don’t exist. Has he only just noticed?”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/john-cook-of-un-skepticalscience-admits-climate-change-denier-is-inaccurate-will-he-stop-name-calling/
Understand, flea?In using the term, you refer to a person who does not exist. You also refer to denial of science which does not exist, namely, science which shows a measurable human effect on climate. Your continual ill-bred failure to respond when asked for a reference to such science, must mean you have no such reference, besides having an appalling attitude to your obligation to behave in a civil manner while participating in the forum.

The author certainly has some sort of agenda with climate-related sceptic stories going back at least 12 years on this site alone.

In that time no doubt the scientific data and evidence has become even more refined and pronounced and the consenus even stronger within the scientific community.

The IPA is (among other things) a cheer squad for the fossil fuel industry with funding coming from BHP-Billiton, Western Mining, Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon)and Shell and Woodside Petroleum and many others.

Like all lobbyists and pundits disguised as "think tanks" they don't study facts and draw conclusions, they try to distort the facts to match their beliefs and support their financial sponsors.

For example - In June 2004 it was revealed that Australia's largest irrgation company, Murray Irrigation Limited, contributed $40,000 to the IPA.
The IPA's environment unit director Jennifer Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River. However, Marohasy did not disclose the donation to the committee.

Meanwhile, here's another assessment of the latest climate claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science

They are really starting to look like "flat-earthers" when it comes to science - but only for a price.

Considering her decendents will be living in the same world as everybody else's I wonder what they will think looking back.

Rache, are all your posts as bereft of science, or pertinent reference as this one?.
You have attacked the author, without spelling out any rational basis for your attack, or how it relates to the topic.
You also make a gratuitous attack on the IPA, with no hint of how it relates to the topic.
The topic, which, in case you have not noticed, Rache, is the obstruction, or non-cooperation of the BOM in the checking of the climate information which it supplies to the ABC.
Your post contains nothing relevant to this. It contains material irrelevant to the article, and appears to be nothing but the output of a troll.
You might care to clarify your position, particularly if you can show how your post bears any relation to the substance of the article, which you purport to address.

Do you have any scientific basis VK3AAUUfor your unsupported statement about Greenland’s “melting ice sheets”
If you reply, you can exclude any conjectures by fraud supporters as to future “expected outcomes”, Just give any scientific observations you have of the current observed situation. Then tell us how it has any relevance to the article on which you purport to be commenting

Jennifer the clearest demonstration that the ABC needs to accept your challenge is the desperation to smear and distract from the thermometer science by these easily fooled green religious trolls. You lured them into this trap to dance like puppets so well. Very funny.

Amazing none of these activists seem to be aware of the latest science from the Arctic showing that the Aurora lights are powered by moving electrons from the solar wind. This in combination with the anti correlation between solar wind power and Arctic ice anomaly shows that neither TSI or CO2 have much to do with it. The Arctic is being melted by the tremendous overhead electric heat lamp power that was forgotten in the faulty radiative balance equations.
https://www.sciencealert.com/pulsating-aurora-northern-lights-electron-microbursts

With their controlled and limited knowledge coming via the ABC and other unquestioning regurgitators of the climate cult bull edicts, simple knowledge of what this means is a complete mystery to them. For example ""A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth's magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth's magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere " wiki

Jennifer

Your article is indeed about temperature ... temperature is one way of measuring how Earth is warming. Displaying the results of temperature increase through objective examples is another way of displaying rising temperature. David, rightly gave Greenland as an example where melting is happening quite quickly; it is clearly temperature related. The melting in Greenland, and melting of Arctic sea ice and thawing of permafrost are also obviously related to temperature.
It is an academic argument about the efficacy of how temperature is measured; when, there are objective examples showing warming is happening.

If you do write about Antarctica you might consider what is happening in relation to the Pine Island glaciers, the Totten glacier, Larson A, B and C, and Ross Ice Shelf. What is happening in relation to grounding lines?

GrahamY
If trolling is about referencinging articles in relation to science with hyperlinks to science research; then, I'm a proud troll.
In relation to how temperature was measured in the 1890s, a reference was given quoting Meteorologists of the 1890s vs speculation around 120 years later. I mentioned this situation to a scientist; her comment was "so?", meaning the comments made by the contrarian didn't make a jot of difference. Trying to generalise from one example to the general provides a logical inconsistency, over the last years there have been huge temperature anomalies measured.
The Arctic is one of the biggest red flags flying in relation to climate change displaying temperature change.

The alternative way of showing temperature clearly does not fit into a contrarian point of view and so needs to be discarded. Interestingly, it was a contrarian who once responded to me suggesting that the small changes in temperature from year to year were so small as to be meaningless.

Continued

Leo Lane,

The scientific assessment is in the included link, which describes the apparent flaws in the assertion.

It's not up to me to prove what has been generally and widely accepted as scientific fact, it's up to the deniers to convincingly disprove those facts and this claim has shown to have failed to do so. The consensus about AGW stretches far wider than remarks made by the ABC.

Cherry-picking only six out of 692 available proxy records is a pretty flimsy basis for argument and even the conclusions are not supported by those facts selectively presented.

My remarks about the IPA are included to suggest there is an ongoing financial motive behind the blurring of scientific data even down to having a personal business interest in the Climate Modelling Laboratory that produced the "report".

Ant et al.

I have much less expertise on issues of sea ice at the poles... but I will have a go: my understanding is based on an assessment, made some time ago, of data here: nsidc.org/data/seaice-index website and related links, etc.

The general trend at the Arctic over the last 30 has been one of decline in the extent of sea ice.

Al Gore claimed it would all be gone by 2014.

A record low for the satellite error (i.e. since 1978) occurred in 2007 at 4.17 million square kilometres of ice.

The last time it was this low was probably back in 1937.

The last time the Arctic was ice free was during the Holocene thermal maxima about 5,000 years ago.

Climate changes... it cycles on periodicities of 9 and 18 years, 61 years, 1,500 years and 10,000 years etc. And the volume of ice at the Arctic does not correlate well with changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

Happy to also discuss trends at the Antarctic over the last few decades and also millennia... but waiting first for some response to these few comments.

Hi Ant, at least you recognise you are trolling, or you wouldn't have done your previous post. And yes, it is trolling when you post completely unrelated links in an effort to obscure the issue the poster is trying to discuss. When you throw multiple irrelevancies in it is called the "Gish Gallop". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop It's a technique used by people who know they don't have a leg to stand on re the current issue, so let's try and start an argument over here - any argument. Jennifer has bought into it by offering to discuss Greenland ice melt. The next thing you know the BOM's incompetence will have faded into the distance.

To stop this happening I'm going to start another thread about Greenland, and you can go over there and discuss it.

@ ANT
You were not alone in being sucked-in by the popular media over the routine passage of the LNG purpose-built tanker as proof of climate change. Out of curiosity, I Googled thus: “eduard toll” passage

There were 12,800 hits. Quite a lot for an event having little real news value don’t you think, unless of course it is distorted to convey a false agenda?
It is typical of the reporting in general about global warming that has been asserted to be caused by exclusively one thing, a trace gas in the atmosphere (also distorted to CO2 = ‘climate change’ to explain away some inconvenient negative warming events)

Let me guess; your favourite newspaper is The Guardian!

Continued from 8.09 am

In the main, articles about climate change or temperature written for Online Opinion are a distraction from the real issue ... climate change, it is happening. Conspiracy theories do not provide a rational to discard science. Conspiracy theories are used to make aggressive points with virtually no real evidence to support them.

If we are not there already, it's almost getting to the stage where Rome is burning and contrarians continue to fiddle.

David provides a salient reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy#2017_GeoResJ_manuscript

Quote:

"In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview she stated that... "[i]t's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change".[15]

On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Ockham's Razor, Dr Marohasy said in 2005... "I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels".[16]"

At least when the facts change, Jennifer changes her mind ANT. What do you do?

@ALAN B Putting aside your various OFF-TOPIC obfuscations, you have at least acknowledged the fundamentals that mercury in glass thermometers (MIG) perform differently to electronic probes (regardless of calibration and software problems). This reality is among the various problems identified in Dr Marohasy’s post, so I’m still puzzled by the following: Your gotcha assertion that atmospheric pressure is problematic for MIG had me highly amused and I found some stuff for your further education. 1) Let’s propose than an extreme variation in atmospheric pressure for a given Oz location could be 980 to 1040 millibars, that’s a range of 60 over 1,000. Converting that into familiar units it is a pressure range variation of 60 x 0.00102 = 0.061 Kg-force/square cm. 2) The modulus of elasticity of glass is comparable to cast iron. Can I leave it to you to get a grip on reality now? 3) You could equally bring up all sorts of trivial obscura such as that when the mercury expands, per the gas laws, as the gas in the tube is compressed, it will instantaneously get hotter and feedback into the mercury, thus expanding it further, but non-linearly, depending on the rate of change and concurrent thermal balances, wind speed, etcetera. You could also fantasise that as the internal gas pressure varies there will be significant deflections in the glass. It’s hard to avoid the thought that you are a troll.

About the pressure, hysteresis and time constant@wind speed read here 74.4.3/4 and 5. Notice the time constant is given as 71 seconds in air at 0.5 M/S. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sKnMBQAAQBAJ&pg=SA74-PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wow Jennifer, you must have them worried,

To have so much slime sent to bog you down, so quickly, they must be scared stiff your work will wake up too many of the sleeping masses.

Good luck with it.

Rache, you make the ridiculous statement “It's not up to me to prove what has been generally and widely accepted as scientific fact, it's up to the deniers to convincingly disprove”
Your assertion is not widely accepted as scientific fact, and there is no science to support it.The fraud promoters like yourself, who assert that global warming is human-caused should reference science to support their assertion.
There is no consensus to support your lie:. The link you supplied was to an article by the lying fraud suppoter Graham Readfern, who asserts a consensus supporting the climate fraud.
As to that: ." have done the math for you again, Grazza. The true length and breadth and with of your imagined “scientific consensus” is not 97.1%. It’s 0.3%. Oops4!
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-on-readfearn-a-journalist-with-a-grudge-is-a-mere-propagandist/

” To emphasise your ignorance, Rache, you use the terms “denier” and “contrarian”. There is no such thing as a “denier”, as the fraud promoters have no science to deny. A contrarian is a supporter of valid science and an opponent of climate fraud.

Hasbeen You are correct when you say "they must be scared stiff your work will wake up too many of the sleeping masses.". The trouble is that they are running out of viable distractions. While they try to avoid the impossible to defend thermometer incompatibilities and bad record keeping they expose yet another fact the ABC must have tried hard to ignore. That is the satellite record trend is showing that the Antarctic ice extent has been growing at 1.8 percent per decade. While a NASA study claims it has been gaining both mass and volume for thirty thousand years. I do not know how long it will take to cover the entire planet in ice but it must be stopped. The history of ice albedo feedback change that would parallel this ice growth shows that the planet must have been receiving more heat in the past to have been at a "Mann" style stability. https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

Jennifer

Quote

“The last time it was this low was probably back in 1937. “

From a temperature point of view that does not make sense, there was a slight peak in temperature in 1937. Anecdotal discussions with Inuit people does not support such a claim, nor do early submarine records support such a view.

Jennifer, I would like to see a solid reference that the sea ice was as low, or lower in 1937 as in 2007 your reference doesn’t work. The lowest sea ice extent ever was recorded in 2012. Probably more importantly, about 80% of volume has been lost since 1980.

Graham Y

Quote:

“At least when the facts change, Jennifer changes her mind ANT”

I have acknowledged I was wrong in an earlier post in relation to the Eduard Toll.

I’m accused of gish galloping; there are something like 12,000 Journal articles published every year about climate change per Powell a few years ago; the research has been written by professional climate scientists. Yet, we are to take on board allegations that temperatures are not being accurately processed by the experts. All apex science related Agencies believe man induced climate change is happening. Many unrelated science disciplines support the science of climate change.

My points about the Arctic are about the effects of temperature. Jennifer’s article is about trying to create doubt in temperature data collated by professional people, what is happening in the environment supports what climate scientists/meteorologists are measuring in relation to temperature increase.

Bob Fernley-Jones

Pretty well every day I receive emails and face book references in relation to climate change, it is very difficult to keep up with the few references I receive daily. Most of my sources are not based in Australia. When contrarians provide references I generally do go to the site referred.

Those people wanting to know about Greenland should be thinking about the farms that were recently partly uncovered but have gone back under the ice again.
"As the Little Ice Age bore down upon the Nordic Settlement on Greenland, she called upon her Champion, Prince Henry Sinclair, and Templar Knights, to rescue 4,000 stranded farmers. These Greenland refugees were brought south to new homes with Native Tribes along the Eastern Seaboard of North America: New England."
http://marcopoloinseattle.com/wp/tag/henry-sinclair/

Ant You have that the wrong way around. ACORN and other such attempts exist because doubt in the data already exists. Jennifer is trying to this sad situation with the data by getting it more correctly understood and better documented.

Ant,

You keep insisting I provide references/links while providing none yourself.

Go to the link that I first provided for an overview of the extent of sea ice since 1978.

Now you are disputing my suggestion that sea ice was low in 1937.. most published studies done in the Arctic pre 1978, where by the Norwegians. There is a great book 'Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations' by Christian Vibe published in 1967... for example.

I am currently traveling (en-route to Africa), but from memory this book talks about the stagnation phase (1810 to 1860), the pulsation phase (1860 to 1910) and then the melting stage (1910 to 1960) with respect to sea ice.

Remember there is a lot of regional variability and also decadal variability in climate. And that Arctic sea ice is very much affected by temperatures in the north Atlantic.

Also, remember from the Climategate emails the discussion about the 'blip' in temperatures in the late 1930s and early 1940s and how to deal with this in terms of homogenisation and the global mean.

If you look at James Hansen's early reconstructions of global temperatures it was very hot in the late 1930s, but this 'blip' as been adjusted down over the last 3 or so decades.

I hope this helps.

As regards the Inuit, there are so many references to reindeer herding and archeological dig work in that Vibe book, I mentioned above.

Siliggy

There are no arguments about Greenland having been quite warm; the Barnes Ice Shelf on Baffin Island suggests temperatures were regionally variable during the Middle Ages as they are now.
When global warming is discussed it is about temperature gathered from all countries.
A few modern examples:
>over the last few years the East Coast of the US has been extremely cold; whereas, snow fields on the West Coast were struggling due to lack of snow.
>Temperature for Alaska had been warm to the extent of algorhymes being knocked out of kilter in 2017.
>Up until now the Barents Sea has been extremely warm shown by little sea ice being formed.
That does not necessarily mean the whole of the Arctic Ocean has warmed. We will be able to see when official figures for maximum and minimum sea ice extent are provided.

Despite extreme cold in some areas, global temperatures overall have been rated as being high in the 21st Century.
So trying to suggest that because a few area were warm, it does not mean others were during the Middle Ages.

@ ANT @ page 7 In your response to GrahamY, you admitted being wrong in your claim that the latest LNG tanker northern passage unescorted by an icebreaker was a sign of global warming. The reason you did so was that I corrected you in the matter. However, and more importantly, you fail to admit that you were sucked-in again on a fake report of the kind you want to believe. Any rational person would be aware that the general media finds good traffic in scary/bad news rather than the mundane all is OK stuff. The mantra that we’re all gonna die in the great heat to come is notably popular in that industry, and you have exposed your gullibility. Although it is OFF-TOPIC, your gullibility and selective reading is exemplified by your inference that submarine vessels have supported comparatively recent satellite data on Arctic ice. In the general feeding frenzy there have been failed predictions of no ice in summer, but it is forgotten that USS Skate surfaced at the North pole in MARCH 1959, and again along with USS Seadragon in 1962. Then of course there is the famous photo of the USA/UK trio surfaced there in MAY 1987: HMS Superb, USS Billfish and USS Sea Devil. There’s also this nice video of HMS Superb and HMS Turbulent surfaced there in 1988. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yAsEhmBnyE Can you please advise why you believe that the still emerging greatly advanced technologies can be correlated with what was more crudely measurable even ten years ago, let alone back in say the 1930’s and 1940’s for which there is a great deal information logged of low ice levels. Again, although it is OFF-TOPIC, I point out that the same challenges apply to the poorly comparable technologies between old and new as is discussed in Dr Marohasy’s post.

Sorry,

I don't know why, but disappointingly, even though on preview a have separation lines between paragraphs they are all bunched up together on screen this end

Jennifer
Climategate:

In relation to Climate Gate, a number of investigations took place, the scientists were not found guilty of any wrong doing. Those who do not take on the results of investigations can be considered conspiracy theorists. It is not an objective point of view.
An example of an investigation which should be far enough removed from scientists to provide credence in the findings:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Al Gore:

Sea ice extent in 2012 was the lowest ever recorded, it still is a record.
It was wrong to believe that the quickened trend would continue.

Sea ice volume:

Sea ice extent is not as meaningful a measure as volume, that being on the basis that sea ice extent does not take into account the thickness or thinness of sea ice.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Arctic in 1930s:

Florence Fetterer, from NSIDC, has provided a record of sea ice from 1850 to 2007:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x/full

Tamino, provides a dialogue on data from Walsh & Chapman and explains where the data came from.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/more-cherry-ice-from-joe-daleo/

Sea ice extent 2007 compared to 2007:

There is a significant difference between 2007 sea ice extent compared with 2012, per graph:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum

Bob Fernley-Jones

I read about submarines taking measure of sea ice some time ago.

But:

"Starting in 1958 U. S. Navy submarines collected upward-looking sonar profiles, for navigation and defense, and converted the information into estimates of ice thickness.[9] Data from U. S. and Royal Navy submarines available from the NSIDC includes maps showing submarine tracks. Data are provided as ice draft profiles and as statistics derived from the profile data. Statistics files include information concerning ice draft characteristics, keels, level ice, leads, undeformed and deformed ice.[10]"

It was not derived from a popular news site.

Another reference:

"Ice draft measurements are collected using the submarine's upward looking sonar. By comparing ice draft data collected by SCICEX with previously published data, scientists established that sea ice thinned significantly within the areas where data were collected between 1958 and 1976 and in the 1990s (Rothrock et al., 2008)."

From:

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

Another reference in relation to sea ice levels prior to satellites.

Bob, are you going to argue against an NSIDC reference

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

@ 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

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

/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.

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

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

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

"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!"

Yes it would be ridiculous to think a mistake had been made accidentally.
You need to look up Hegalien dialectic, Problem, Reaction, Solution.

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem.
The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria).
The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one:
- A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.

Once you get past that, you might consider that what you are witnessing as homogenised data and 'accidentally and incorrectly modified' resulting in Global Warming prognosis is actually homogenised data 'ON PURPOSE' in order to push the Global Warming agenda for alternative reasons.

You need to go back to this and look at the agenda of those who originally published and supported the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

@ ANT, As Dr Marohasy is currently overseas, I’ll respond on her behalf WRT your blind acceptance of the so-called independent enquiries into the Climategate email affair. Very briefly, here is an email extract from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones, the top scientists at the CRU: <blockquote>Phil, here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we'd still have to explain the land blip. “I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip…"<blockquote/> Here is an interesting expose on corruption of the 1940’s temperature records for Iceland: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-icelandic-saga-continues/ This ‘Trove’ record from 1940 is also interesting: <blockquote>”…it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet…”<blockquote/> https://tinyurl.com/y8sztww4 And this from 1940: Warmer disappearing Arctic ice scientists reports https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19401214.2.31 You won’t find mention of at NSIDC or on your favourite blogs such as Tamino’s (smile)

@ ANT continued Coming back to the Climategate “Independent Enquiries”, there is a parallel with the “Technical Advisory Forum” enquiry which was set-up in 2015 to investigate the quality of the Bureau of Meteorology’s homogenization programme (ACORN-SAT). It was installed by Bob Baldwin on behalf of the Environment Minister to investigate various complaints from the public. It met with the Bureau for just one day, when the home team spent the morning presenting their story to the panel. After lunch, there was a question and answer session. An imposing report was later published in which among other things, they declared that ACORN-SAT was amongst world best practice. However, it was admitted that none of the public submissions (including mine) that were formalized for the enquiry, and which were invited for review by Baldwin, in fact, were NOT reviewed by the panel. Starting in December last year, I advised the Bureau Helpdesk with four emails some serious errors in their data which they have refused to openly accept. Eventually, while still refusing to accept their errors, they advised on 14/February: <blockquote> “…Perth Airport was one of a handful of sites where there were issues associated with the use of parallel observations that were only taken for a relatively short span of time (i.e. the period of overlapping observations associated with a site move is shorter than ideal). This issue has been remediated in version 2 of the analysis, which is due for release this year…”<blockquote/> In fact the overlap period was three years, which is three times longer than the minimum allowed in the ACORN-SAT methodology ACORN-SAT was declared best practice in 2015 and it is to be replaced by a new version later this year? I’m only writing this in case any readers pass by. YOU will of course not accept this advice

Bob

I only referenced one review of a "Climate Gate" investigation, there were a number of other investigations. You state that the scientists are guilty; do you have access to all the information collated by all the investigations? How is it possible to determine guilt or otherwise when you do not have access to all the information presented at an investigation?
It is a matter of jumping to a conclusion without knowing all the details.

You have made your mind up against the official reports; if you took a skeptical view neither accepting or denying Climate Gate; then, I can accept your position. If taking a skeptical position; then, constantly claiming that "Climate Gate" displays nefarious use of information you are not taking a skeptical approach. That puts you with the groups that support conspiracy theories. That's a non-scientific or rational approach.

Siliggy

Your reference:

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1907/1907_09.jpg

September is when the Arctic minimum is recorded probably much earlier in 1907. Your referenced map states for all areas shown in white that "St of ice unkn"; in other words sailors had no means to reach those areas and so could not comment.

Agreed Bob Fernley-Jones?

Satellite data confirms the loss of ice in Greenland (2012&2002):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053611/full

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958

Temperature (2008):

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1964.1

Siliggy, try google scholar ( melting of greenland ice sheet) before suggesting pinning your argument to one reference. There were 60,000 entries, I clicked up to page 50, and entries were still specific to request.

There may or may, not be a change in conditions in the Arctic at present; over the last winters sea ice has been late in forming.

It would be silly to draw conclusions from this graph:

https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/967081306147274757/photo/1

We need to wait and see what maximum sea ice extent is, prior to melting beginning.
It is the same with jumping to conclusions in relation to Greenland when the longer trend line has been going down.

Bob Fernley-Jones

It just occurred to me to go to RationalWiki to find if they had discussed "Climate Gate", the matter had been investigated more than I realised, as discussed in rationalwiki.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

From their about section:

"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."

At the site there are hyperling explaing further those points.

My apologies

At the site there are hyperling explaing further those points.

Sentence should read, regarding the "about" section of RationalWiki:

At the site there are hyperlinks explaining further those points.
....

The manipulation of temperature data is constantly levelled at Meteorologists, not only in Australia. As can be seen from the graph, there is a minute change in data from the raw temperature measured and the homogenised result. The final result displays lower temperatures!

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/breitbart-repeats-bloggers-unsupported-claim-noaa-manipulates-data-exaggerate-warming/