Catlin Artic Survey

[Gray-Wolf]

So folk are not confused.

I an n AGW'er, I have no problem in extending the manifest devastation man has wrought (in the 'visible spectrum' :lol: ) into climate (both in it's short term manifestations and it's long term cycles).

The Catlin expedition is odd in it's own rights but the data it culls, once properly interpreted (I think All sides get an equal bite of the cherry ) will ,obviously, be worthwhile.

It would appear (to me in the least) that events 'on the ground' will outstrip such long term extrapolation of data in favour of the "in yer face" kind that Aug/Sept will supply us with

[Mondy]

Lady Pakal is right when she says the block feature is a godsend :lol:

just what are you on about now, GW?

[masheeuk]

The Catlin expedition is odd in it's own rights but the data it culls, once properly interpreted (I think All sides get an equal bite of the cherry :lol: ) will ,obviously, be worthwhile.

After spending several hours reading all the different statements there will be no data as all the surveying equipment has failed and been taken away by aircraft. I for one would not rely on one person saying I drilled a hole and it was this deep

[Essan]

After spending several hours reading all the different statements there will be no data as all the surveying equipment has failed and been taken away by aircraft. I for one would not rely on one person saying I drilled a hole and it was this deep

And I'm sure you also would not rely on someone telling you the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. Still, as my signature says .......

[gigabite]

1. How can a tape measure and drill be effected by cold?

2. It is tough to walk 4 miles a day at -140F.

3. Believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and it orbits the Sun.

4. The Sun size and distance from Earth are inherently tied to artic ice thickness.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AR4_ANALYSIS_SERIES.pdf

Edited April 11, 2009 by gigabite

[Mondy]

The lack of data is astounding! I reckon they will wait until arriving home( in all propability evacuated again) then number (fudge) crunch to suit the sponsors. Let's face it, looking at these two images, there's a not a lot to report except to say ice is everyone, it's thick as hell and it's still growing in the Berings Sea!

Just for good measure, here's overall :

Edited April 11, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[laserguy]

Imagine a scenario where an alarmist says something like "based on our findings we're very pleased to report that actually,things are looking very positive and...". Yes - imagine.

[Essan]

Yes, the images speak for themselves (even if they are made up by the Reptilian/Illuminati Cabal :o )

The researchers, who have been tracking Arctic sea ice cover with satellites since 1979, found that the winter of 2008-09 was the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events in the satellite record have all occurred in the past six years, according to CU-Boulder researcher Walt Meier of NSIDC.

The new measurements by CU-Boulder's NSIDC show the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09 reached on Feb. 28 was 5.85 million square miles, which is 278,000 square miles below the average extent for 1979 to 2000, an area slightly larger than the state of Texas, said Meier.

In addition, a team of CU-Boulder researchers led by Research Associate Charles Fowler of the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, or CCAR, has found that younger, thinner ice has replaced older, thicker ice as the dominant type over the past five years, making it more prone to summer melt.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90406132602.htm

Of course, one is entitled to believe what one wants to believe. But to me it looks like the ice is thinning - though obviously we're still a long, long way from the ice-free summer waters of the mid Holocene.

It'll be interesting to see whether a shift to the cold phase of the AMO allows the ice to recover and thicken again - something we'll be better able to monitor after the Catlin Expedition. Although obviously some folk, like Wattsy, would rather these amateurs didn't risk other peoples lives obtaining the data, especially since they can tell ice thickness by looking out of the window and in any case aren't the slightest interested in knowing whether the ice thickens or thins.

[Devonian]

That's utter rubbish and you know it. "Wattsy" is showing the world for what the AGW crowd really are.

And what are 'we' like? Be personal if you like (which is where such comments are going...), it might illuminate...

Let me get this straight. One posted topic on his blog about a small expedition to the Arctic for scientific purposes shouldn't be shown? Watts has rattled you guys no end. Now all you can say is it's an example of USA v Britain bully boy tactics. What nonsense.

Rattled? Sick of the playground snark and goading that passes for criticism and analysis on blog like WUWT and amazed how many people simply take it on-board uncritically - almost as if it confirm pre conceived ideas. Whether snark and goading has more than zero to do with science is a question I'll leave open.

So called Britons are not attacking their fellow countrymen. They are becoming more aware of the fraud which is AGW and what comes with it, and are now beginning to wonder just how people can still believe such claptrap..therefore they question/reply, not attack.

'Fraud'. You should be careful about using such inflammatory language in such a broad brush way about a lot of people (though, of course, it might just be goading). I don't want to start making such allegations but if you're allowed to say such not true things (for they are not true - not one of us here, on either 'side' you included, are part of a fraud and I resent the implication anyone might be) then I reserve the right so to do about others. Ok? And where would that get us????

[Mondy]

Cards on the table then.

I know, and you know, you are one of the prime AGW movers on this public forum. To my knowlegde you repel everything said to you, about you or generally anything with substance aimed at disregarding AGW.

Therefore, how about you show me some of the links, pdf files, websites etc which you read to make you so sure anti -AGW people are wrong. Even better, and please don't duck the issue, how about you show me some sort of concrete proof which may make me want to read more and go "hmm, he has a point, you know"

I shall refrain from being personal, but again you know, and I know, very many pro AGW types like to shove doom and gloom scenarios down our throats. There are, in actual fact, so many names for your ilk, but I'd not going to lower myself, even if I am brazen sceptic to you.

Regarding "fraud" - I read your views, you know mine - perhaps one of us will be proved correct in the long run, particularly now the world is not warming; so "Global Warming" is a term very much open to ridicule.

Imagine a scenario where an alarmist says something like "based on our findings we're very pleased to report that actually,things are looking very positive and...". Yes - imagine.

LOL, that would be unheard of. It's like an in-built defence mechanism - deny any positive aspects

[Red Raven]

Cards on the table then.

I know, and you know, you are one of the prime AGW movers on this public forum. To my knowlegde you repel everything said to you, about you or generally anything with substance aimed at disregarding AGW.

Therefore, how about you show me some of the links, pdf files, websites etc which you read to make you so sure anti -AGW people are wrong. Even better, and please don't duck the issue, how about you show me some sort of concrete proof which may make me want to read more and go "hmm, he has a point, you know"

I shall refrain from being personal, but again you know, and I know, very many pro AGW types like to shove doom and gloom scenarios down our throats. There are, in actual fact, so many names for your ilk, but I'd not going to lower myself, even if I am brazen sceptic to you.

Regarding "fraud" - I read your views, you know mine - perhaps one of us will be proved correct in the long run, particularly now the world is not warming; so "Global Warming" is a term very much open to ridicule.

LOL, that would be unheard of. It's like an in-built defence mechanism - deny any positive aspects

To put it succinctly. What you are calling for is intellectual rigour and an arrival at an unbiased conclusion. Yet, you don't seem to show those attributes in your 'anti' stance. The science of climate change is not politics, it may be used by politicians but this debate is about the science and as I have said before science is about the quest for knowledge nothing more nothing less.

The nonesense that party politics is comes to mind for some strange reason.

[Gowon]

1. How can a tape measure and drill be effected by cold?

2. It is tough to walk 4 miles a day at -140F.

3. Believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and it orbits the Sun.

4. The Sun size and distance from Earth are inherently tied to artic ice thickness.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AR4_ANALYSIS_SERIES.pdf

It's strange when there's facts like these, which i think corresponds with David Dilley studies, that they continually blame CO2, very strange.

[Devonian]

Cards on the table then.

I know, and you know, you are one of the prime AGW movers on this public forum. To my knowlegde you repel everything said to you, about you or generally anything with substance aimed at disregarding AGW.

I do.

That is because I think the science is right. Do I rule out it being wrong? No. Do I rule out it, the science as a body, being fraudulent? Yes, I do. There is a difference between wrong and fraudulent that many seem to miss. One is a criticisms the other an insult directed at the good character of thousands of people.

Therefore, how about you show me some of the links, pdf files, websites etc which you read to make you so sure anti -AGW people are wrong. Even better, and please don't duck the issue, how about you show me some sort of concrete proof which may make me want to read more and go "hmm, he has a point, you know"

Yes, start with the IPPC reports, then read what the Met Office have to say, what scientists at Real Climate have to say. Read Nature if you're lucky enough to be able to do, likewise read Weather or read GRL or New Scientists or Science, any of the top science periodicals. Consult any university meteorology departments. Get yourself down the the Met office library in Exeter. Buy some climate books by top scientists (try David Archer), there a plenty of good science books. As a very, very, very last resort read, as I do, WUWT - and then simply for balance.

Am I 'sure'? Again, no I am not. Is there proof? No - that is to play the proof game, you don't get the kind of proof I think you want outside of the hard mathematical sciences.

I shall refrain from being personal, but again you know, and I know, very many pro AGW types like to shove doom and gloom scenarios down our throats. There are, in actual fact, so many names for your ilk, but I'd not going to lower myself, even if I am brazen sceptic to you.

Well, I don't shove anything down anyone throats. I do defend the science if it's attacked in places like this.

Regarding "fraud" - I read your views, you know mine - perhaps one of us will be proved correct in the long run, particularly now the world is not warming; so "Global Warming" is a term very much open to ridicule.

No. It's, as I've said, possible the science is wrong, but a fraud? Thousands of scientists involved in a monumental deception which goes further in to all the scientific journals, all the major Met organisations (both public and private), all universities, all schools and (it seems) any explorer who mentions AGW? No, that is simply not just wrong, not just a fantasy but something beyond that..

[Essan]

Reasons I refute those who argue that human activity is not responsible for climate change include:

Atmospheric Brown Clouds

Contrails

Deforestation

Aerosols

Now it may be that these and many hundreds of other studies are all wrong and we have no effect on climate at all. But I'm persuaded by the science. Even if I'd rather it were wrong. And I cannot but think it likely that when one adds in the effects of CO2 etc as well, the net result may well be a small underlying warming trend. Although Personally I'd put anthropogenic precipitation pattern change as a far bigger concern for the immediate future.

Anyway, be interested to know why some are so certain that I and all these scientists are completely wrong

Of course, all such studies require someone at some point to have acquired the necessary data. Which is of course where we come in with the Catlin Expedition. Acquiring data. The more of which we have, the more of which we know. And the less we sit in the dark.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Essan

[LadyPakal]

(although I get the impression you're one of those who objects to the cost of your energy bill but objects even more when someone suggests turning the lights off at night!)

Ooo, a 'scientist' making assumptions. Don't assume - you know nothing about me.

But if you're going to talk about lighting, I can't sleep with the lights on so there's one thing you know now, plus I like a low light environment, so there's another. Luckily the low energy bulbs I have don't chuck as much light out as the old ones, even though my migraines have increased since I got them.

Edited April 11, 2009 by LadyPakal

[Essan]

Ooo, a 'scientist' making assumptions. Don't assume - you know nothing about me.

I'm no scientist - I'm an antique dealer!

[LadyPakal]

I'm no scientist - I'm an antique dealer!

'I'm a sciencer. I believe in the science.'

Should have written Sciencer - apologies. The principle stands however.

[gigabite]

It's strange when there's facts like these, which i think corresponds with David Dilley studies, that they continually blame CO2, very strange.

That Image is from the paper and the corresponding image which I clip out because of my personal belief that what it shows is irrelevant to the global warming discussion that is that the co2 is asymptotic and the Ice shelf curve is cyclical. The percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is something like .05 of which a large portion is hard co2 that is pollution that degasses in a spectrometer which eschews the data and the portions cancels. That is not to say that there are not localized heat islands where large segments of the global population live. My point of view is that the current rate of warming is not sustainable to hit a 135,000 year cusp. Temporary cooling intervals do occur and the earth is at the beginning of one now, but from this image it looks like the Labrador Ice shelf shrank some at perihelion this year.

[Mondy]

Well the propaganda machine will be out in force soon :winky:

The Catlin Arctic Survey has now released its first set of ice and snow thickness measurements, showing the floating sea ice cover it has travelled over in the early stage is predominantly new ice, with an average thickness of 1.77m. The findings were obtained by manual drilling and are currently being analysed by science partners

The route they took says it all :lol:

It's never wise to imagine that either man or technology has the upper hand in the natural world," he said today. "It's truly brutal at times out here on the Arctic Ocean and a constant reminder that Mother Nature always has the final say"

Ohhh, the AGW mob won't like reading that! :winky:

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=160

[Mondy]

http://margosmaid.blogspot.com/2009/04/tra...ice-survey.html

:lol:

[Mondy]

Gone, vanished, Catlin no more - for what exactly?

Did they make inroads in anything? What will their findings bring? Why didn't the media report they had left the vicinity?

To quote Haddow:

what the heck am I doing here...again!

All in the name of AGW.

[LadyPakal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7897392.stm

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7897392.stm

Thanks LP!

Seeing as the skeptic fringe hooked onto the Catlin Expo and did there best to dride their efforts I have taken a keen interest in their trip.

I too feel sure that the data they have amassed will go a long way to confirming how drastically things have altered up there over the past 7 years.What IS of interest is the state of the single year ice.

You can imagine the scenario where the Arctic Amplification extends the period of open water at winters start and that general global warming has brought forwards the onset of the melt season, leaving a significantly thinner first year pack facing the summer melt.

Well done to all involved.

[noggin]

Well the propaganda machine will be out in force soon :lol:

It was alive and kicking on the Beeb last night. As soon as I saw David Shuckman I thought "wait for it" and....... hey presto!......he was off. I half listened to him but what I heard didn't seem to correspond with what I have read on the old interwebby-thing re the extent of Arctic ice.

[Solar Cycles]

It was alive and kicking on the Beeb last night. As soon as I saw David Shuckman I thought "wait for it" and....... hey presto!......he was off. I half listened to him but what I heard didn't seem to correspond with what I have read on the old interwebby-thing re the extent of Arctic ice.

The catonahottinroof crews results, are the complete opposite of a study recently conducted by German scientist. Still let's not get in the way of a good old story chaps! Honestly watching last nights events, was on par to any Python sketch I've seen!!