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.