Antarctic Ice Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

2 hours ago, tablet said:

what part of "Antarctic sea Ice thickness tracker " ( NOAA)  are you having trouble with Void ? is this not an Antarctic Ice Discussion thread ?

 

All you posted was an image. You didn't (and still haven't) explained the point you were attempting to make. 
Yes, I can tell it's Antarctic ice thickness, but by posting a link to the source (where the original image comes from) it might help to answer a few questions about the model such as:

• How long has it been in use?
• What validation has been done?
• How accurate is it?
• Is it primarily based on observational data or models?

The kind of questions anyone with a sceptical mindset might have. Just from the images, it says it covers 65-70 degrees south. Do you think that covers all the sea ice?

 

2 hours ago, tablet said:

i'll tell you what I'm getting at void , look at these charts , every one of them is based on one set of data , the USHCN station readings , but by using temperature homogenization , every time it's been updated , it looks a little different , cooler in the past , warmer in the present , which is strange to say the least

in 2005 NASA released this

then in 2007 ,,this

which is strange because the temperature didn't alter all that much during that period , and NASA do the same with tidal gauges

 

So, mind posting a link to the climate change denier blog you stole those images from?
Equipment gets updated, stations get moved, techniques improve, spatial coverage improves, biases are identified and corrected, and all this is explained in published papers and reports so everything can be tested and replicated.
If you want to really criticise the temperature record, you need to find the papers that detail the changes made and the explanations for them, then demonstrate why they are wrong. Anything else just comes across as conspiracy theories.

Are you familiar with Richard Muller, @tablet?

[Methuselah]

Apart from the old Straw Man hypothesis - that, for AGW theory to be correct, each and every square centimetre of the Earth's surface ought to be warming at the same rate (and that every square centimetre of land-ice ought to be thinning at the same rate) - I admit to having little or no idea as to what tablet is going-on about...

[tablet]

if a thermometer in 1950 read 18 degrees , I accept it was 18 degrees , if someone 40 years later says it wasn't 18 degrees , he'd better have a time machine to back up what he is saying ,,but I'm betting he doesn't , and altering the temperature to fit your theory is not very scientific , like the guy who published this

,,who was held in contempt of court in Canada last year for refusing to show the data he used to come up with this hockey stick , even when he was caught out

[tablet]

if  you don't want to read the posts Mr BSc , just scroll past , not everybody believes the same as you

 

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, tablet said:

if  you don't want to read the posts Mr BSc , just scroll past , not everybody believes the same as you

 

Touche...same applies to you?

[tablet]

Equipment gets updated, stations get moved, techniques improve, spatial coverage improves, biases are identified and corrected, and all this is explained in published papers and reports so everything can be tested and replicated.

 or , the original data was changed void is another way of saying it ,,,yes ?

[BornFromTheVoid]

9 minutes ago, tablet said:

if a thermometer in 1950 read 18 degrees , I accept it was 18 degrees , if someone 40 years later says it wasn't 18 degrees , he'd better have a time machine to back up what he is saying ,,but I'm betting he doesn't , and altering the temperature to fit your theory is not very scientific , like the guy who published this

,,who was held in contempt of court in Canada last year for refusing to show the data he used to come up with this hockey stick , even when he was caught out

What if the scientists had a thermometer from 1950, and a modern thermometer which was known to be more accurate. Then they tested them at the same site and found the modern thermometer read, on average, 0.5C lower than the 1950s thermometer? Would that not be justification for some adjustments?

Held in contempt of court, over a graph that's fully in agreement with other reconstructions? Got any proof or just more random, out of context email snippets?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Edited May 18, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[tablet]

no , unless you changed all the equipment  , from all the sites of the  USHCN station's , then ran the tests again , which you can't do , otherwise ,,,,your changing the data

[tablet]

I posted 2 video's of Dr Jennifer Marohasy catching the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) in Australia changing minimum temperatures , but they were removed 
( I wonder who complained ) just last year 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783

Edited May 18, 2018 by tablet

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, tablet said:

no , unless you changed all the equipment  , from all the sites of the  USHCN station's , then ran the tests again , which you can't do , otherwise ,,,,your changing the data

If you know that the older instrument has a clear bias, then you can adjust for it.. This is good scientific practise. Otherwise, you are knowingly used faulty data but not accounting for know changes. This would result in a loss of ability to comare old with new reading, rendering the whole data series invalid. This isn't just a technique used in thermometers, it's used all over the world for countless other things. 

 

56 minutes ago, tablet said:

I posted 2 video's of Dr Jennifer Marohasy catching the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) in Australia changing minimum temperatures , but they were removed 
( I wonder who complained ) just last year 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783

Your link has a paywall. I also wonder why this Dr has to publish her ideas in a paper rather than following the scientific route. Might it be that the Australian has little to no review process and gives access to a mass of relatively gullible readers?

[tablet]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

If you know that the older instrument has a clear bias, then you can adjust for it.. This is good scientific practise. Otherwise, you are knowingly used faulty data but not accounting for know changes. This would result in a loss of ability to comare old with new reading, rendering the whole data series invalid. This isn't just a technique used in thermometers, it's used all over the world for countless other things. 

you know that doing this invalidates the data , and is totally unscientific ,,,you must know this

[tablet]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Your link has a paywall. I also wonder why this Dr has to publish her ideas in a paper rather than following the scientific route. Might it be that the Australian has little to no review process and gives access to a mass of relatively gullible readers?

it wasn't in a paper , the clip I posted ( that was removed because someone didn't want it viewed )  was her being interviewed on Australian sky news, and the ridiculous response from the Bureau of Meteorology  , who then 2 weeks later changed their story , but we can't have people on TV telling the truth about climate , can we , the newspaper link was just to illustrate the fact ( that it did happen , even though many will be glad  that a true case of climate fraudsters  being  caught red handed  knocking 1 degree off the minimum temperature , but not broadcast worldwide )

Edited May 18, 2018 by tablet

[tablet]

5 minutes ago, tablet said:

If you know that the older instrument has a clear bias, then you can adjust for it.. This is good scientific practise. Otherwise, you are knowingly used faulty data but not accounting for know changes. This would result in a loss of ability to comare old with new reading, rendering the whole data series invalid. This isn't just a technique used in thermometers, it's used all over the world for countless other things. 

I take back what I said void , I bet this is a very common practice for your brethren , deciding that thermometers  were no longer capable of measuring temperature , so they substitute a " homogenized" temperature , and guess what !!! it better suits all those incredibly accurate climate models that they keep bringing out ( none of which has been successful in predicting anything , ever , not one climate model has been right )  

[Devonian]

8 hours ago, tablet said:

you know that doing this invalidates the data , and is totally unscientific ,,,you must know this

You write some might strange things here Mr Tablet.

I have a maximum and a minimum thermometer, which I had set up in a Stevenson Screen during the 90s and 00's until I got my first AWS. Suppose I sent the thermometers (which I still have)  off to the national Physics Laboratory (NPL) to be tested for accuracy and the report came back saying they are over recording by 1.5C. Your argument, as you have said in recent posts, is it would be wrong (perhaps even fraud) by me to take that into account in my records.

You what???

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, Devonian said:

You write some might strange things here Mr Tablet.

I have a maximum and a minimum thermometer, which I had set up in a Stevenson Screen during the 90s and 00's until I got my first AWS. Suppose I sent the thermometers (which I still have)  off to the national Physics Laboratory (NPL) to be tested for accuracy and the report came back saying they are over recording by 1.5C. Your argument, as you have said in recent posts, is it would be wrong (perhaps even fraud) by me to take that into account in my records.

You what???

Dev....

This is not how most of the 'errors' were detected Dev. If it was true the OK....

They were detected by software which looked  for exceptions.

It looks as if this discussion has been sent up your  'garden path'.

The data errors were looked at in terms of other  sites in the area and any adjustments made. 

We now find, after the process has been carried out 4 or 5 times,  that  the data is hardly recognisable from the original records.

Latest thoughts, in sceptic world, are that the UHI effect has not been fully discounted due to the fact that most stations are now surrounded by human advancement. Whereas originally many were in semi-rural localities. 

In the US it is thought that as many as 85% of readings are taken from suburban areas. 100 years ago most were taken in rural localities.

MIA

[Devonian]

30 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev....

This is not how most of the 'errors' were detected Dev. If it was true the OK....

They were detected by software which looked  for exceptions.

It looks as if this discussion has been sent up your  'garden path'.

The data errors were looked at in terms of other  sites in the area and any adjustments made. 

We now find, after the process has been carried out 4 or 5 times,  that  the data is hardly recognisable from the original records.

Latest thoughts, in sceptic world, are that the UHI effect has not been fully discounted due to the fact that most stations are now surrounded by human advancement. Whereas originally many were in semi-rural localities. 

In the US it is thought that as many as 85% of readings are taken from suburban areas. 100 years ago most were taken in rural localities.

MIA

Let me put my point again.

"I have a maximum and a minimum thermometer, which I had set up in a Stevenson Screen during the 90s and 00's until I got my first AWS. Suppose I sent the thermometers (which I still have)  off to the national Physics Laboratory (NPL) to be tested for accuracy and the report came back saying they are over recording by 1.5C. Your argument, as you have said in recent posts, is it would be wrong (perhaps even fraud) by me to take that into account in my records."

What is your answer THAT? If it was found my thermometers were reading 1.5C too high, should that error in my records be ignored or correct? And if thermometers that take official reading were also tested and found to be inaccurate should that error be ignored or not? It seem to me Tablet is saying discovered errors should be ignored? Do you agree?

Edited May 19, 2018 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

Accounting for stations moves and the UHI is part of the data homogenisation

So adjusting and correcting for know errors and biases are now considered anti-scientific by some. Trumpisms are spreading.

[Midlands Ice Age]

7 hours ago, Devonian said:

Let me put my point again.

"I have a maximum and a minimum thermometer, which I had set up in a Stevenson Screen during the 90s and 00's until I got my first AWS. Suppose I sent the thermometers (which I still have)  off to the national Physics Laboratory (NPL) to be tested for accuracy and the report came back saying they are over recording by 1.5C. Your argument, as you have said in recent posts, is it would be wrong (perhaps even fraud) by me to take that into account in my records."

What is your answer THAT? If it was found my thermometers were reading 1.5C too high, should that error in my records be ignored or correct? And if thermometers that take official reading were also tested and found to be inaccurate should that error be ignored or not? It seem to me Tablet is saying discovered errors should be ignored? Do you agree?

Dev...

My answer was in my reply. Note the missing letter 'n' as in 'then' ,

Please reread, You will find that I agree with you in the first sentence!

My point was that  YOUR situation is not the normal reason for the data being adjusted.

Many people have pointed out that when checked  the thermometers were/are still OK..

Homogenisation is over done. More of the earth's surface is homogenised than not.

MIA

[Methuselah]

On 19/05/2018 at 17:14, Midlands Ice Age said:

Dev...

Homogenisation is over done. More of the earth's surface is homogenised than not.

MIA

Is that just another one of your airy-fairy contrarian opinions, MIA? Or can you actually back it up with any evidence?

[Gray-Wolf]

The old " I don't like the numbers so let's cast doubt over them" ploy eh?

M.I.A. isn't going to like it when they sort out Sea ice extent/area measures to better capture the open water central pack we see these days..... he'll go all b@stardi on us!

[knocker]

The rate of sea level rise resulting from the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has tripled over the past five years, according to new research from a global team of scientists.

Quote

The study, published in Nature, finds that ice loss from Antarctica has caused sea levels to rise by 7.6mm from 1992-2017, with two fifths of this increase occurring since 2012.

At a press conference held in London, scientists said the results suggest that Antarctica has become “one of the largest contributors to sea level rise”.

A glaciologist not involved in the paper tells Carbon Brief that the findings show “there now should be no doubt that Antarctica is losing ice due to regional climate change, likely linked to global warming”.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/sea-level-rise-due-antarctic-ice-melt-has-tripled-over-past-five-years?utm_source=TwitterVid&utm_campaign=AntarcticIce0618

[Methuselah]

5 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

 As usual Ed you throw away personal comments instead of actual data.

MIA

Personal comments? Merely asking the obvious questions...But, hey, the hypotheses you refute have all but been proven - inasmuch as science can prove anything - so I'll not be getting involved in any more semantic silliness with you...Ciao for now.

Kindest regards

Pete

[Midlands Ice Age]

7 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Personal comments? Merely asking the obvious questions...But, hey, the hypotheses you refute have all but been proven - inasmuch as science can prove anything - so I'll not be getting involved in any more semantic silliness with you...Ciao for now.

Kindest regards

Pete

Great technical answer Ed...

So the world climate datasets are nearly 90% homogenised data...

You asked me for my evidence and I supplied it!

To make it relevent to the thread,  I actually found the stations in the Antarctic. for you..

It is time you checked some of the things out and thought for yourself.

MIA

On the same subject and regarding the research presented as fact by Knocker.

The 'ice loss' is reported in the Western Antarctic.

This is just about 11% of the total mass of the Antarctic. There  is ample evidence of increased snowfall in the last few years in the greater Antarctica continent.

To put this into perspective  3 trillion tons of ice loss  represents about 0.011% of the total  of ice on the continent.

The report does not even mention that in the last 2-3 years it has been established that there several volcanoes have been established under exactly the small region that they have found any melt. (Great background research guys). and that melting from seismic origin is suspected. 

Also that when the were funded in 2012, the general view was the Antarctic continent had gained mass in the previous 30 years.

Now due to the new satellite Algor- ythms they are apparently using this same data is presented as showing ice loss.

 Forgive me, for I am much to much of a sceptic on all this useless,  public spending. 

MIA

 

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Great technical answer Ed...

So the world climate datasets are nearly 90% homogenised data...

You asked me for my evidence and I supplied it!

To make it relevent to the thread,  I actually found the stations in the Antarctic. for you..

It is time you checked some of the things out and thought for yourself.

MIA

On the same subject and regarding the research presented as fact by Knocker.

The 'ice loss' is reported in the Western Antarctic.

This is just about 11% of the total mass of the Antarctic. There  is ample evidence of increased snowfall in the last few years in the greater Antarctica continent.

To put this into perspective  3 trillion tons of ice loss  represents about 0.011% of the total  of ice on the continent.

The report does not even mention that in the last 2-3 years it has been established that there several volcanoes have been established under exactly the small region that they have found any melt. (Great background research guys). and that melting from seismic origin is suspected. 

Also that when the were funded in 2012, the general view was the Antarctic continent had gained mass in the previous 30 years.

Now due to the new satellite Algor- ythms they are apparently using this same data is presented as showing ice loss.

 Forgive me, for I am much to much of a sceptic on all this useless,  public spending. 

MIA

 

I take it 'homogenised' is your latest word-of-the-week, MIA? Anyway, wordplay notwithstanding, your citing WUWT as a source of authority undermines your entire enterprise? After all, wasn't Watts a major instigator of all that 'Climategate' malarkey?

[Midlands Ice Age]

5 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I  take it 'homogenised' is your latest word-of-the-week, MIA? Anyway, wordplay notwithstanding, your citing WUWT as a source of authority undermines your entire enterprise? After all, wasn't Watts a major instigator of all that 'Climategate' malarkey?

Ed...

Clearly you do not understand what my references to WUWT, and Steven Mosher and Nick Stokes are, since  they  were the 2 people who thought up and implemented and still run with the data in this format?  You clearly have not read any background information at all? THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CODE, and implemented it in the BEST project.  Does that not classify as an authority? They enjoy and encourage debate. They do not have the closed minds of many. Apparently that makes them nondescript and to be ignored in your eyes. Simply because they appear on WUWT!!

Ed, you really should do more background reading if you want to enter into meaningful debate.

Unlike some  forums, WUWT has welcomed them (although they take an opposing view to many on there) and they are also open to cross question .    All people's views  are accepted and discussed, irrespective of position and without any personal bias.

It is the major reason that it has been voted the number one forum for the nth year in succession.

As for Climategate, I thought that the University of East Anglia wrote the Email malarky, no one knows who extracted them, but they ended up on Watts desk. He is probably the only person in the world that could have ensured that the information was distributed worldwide. 

The details  have never been denied. They are factual and as such is it a 'sin' to publish facts?

MIA

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Midlands Ice Age