Ice island snaps off Greenland: Just a fifth the size of 1962 whopper A vast island of ice has broken off a glacier in Greenland: but it is just one-fifth the size of one which snapped off from Canada in 1962 and half the size of one seen in 2010. The new monster iceberg is assessed as covering 46 square miles by professor Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware, which he calculates as …
Could you please use standard El Reg land-area units, i.e, the milli-Wales rather than these odd colonial units of the 'Manhattan' (I thought that was a cocktail)?
Or perhaps the Anglesey? I reckon this iceberg is about 0.17 standard Ynys Môns - and the whoppa from 1962 was nearly a whole Anglesey (does rather put it in context).
Lucy Sherriff's piece was invaluable, a contribution to human-kind that should have been given more prominence than rumours about fundamental particles..
However, for convenience in future, could you guys please make it available as a downloadable pdf?
It's quite time-consuming to have to go through the whole vid, looking for a correct figure. (As the contributor of this piece clearly found, and, shockingly, simply didn't bother to do. )
I think you're misrepresenting here. The comments about whether warming was to blame were from the scientist releasing the report, not Lewis. Also, he only stated that air temperature was not likely to be to blame and that there was not enough of a record to know if sea temperatures had risen or not.
In short, he seems to be saying nobody knows if this is to do with warming (of whatever sort) and whether its particularly big or small or unusual even. If we've had similar at least twice before (especially one in 1962), maybe this just happens occassionally? Mind you, the other was in 2010, so two have come close together.
Nice link.
From the article (my emphasis)
"Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, noted that this calving event marks a retreat of the Petermann Glacier “farther back than historical calving fronts.” A comparison of this event to the 2010 event shows that this iceberg broke off the glacier tongue farther upstream. The crack along the southern margin of this new iceberg, however, has been visible in satellite imagery for several years. That rift was first identified in 2001."
I wonder how far back "historical calving fronts" data go?
He certainly missed the chance to talk about the recent paper which found no evidence of any recent increase in global water vapour - since that's a critical requirement for the CO2 warming mechanism and it's been shown not to exist I would say it was now game, set and match to the deniers....
Vonder Haar, T. H., J. Bytheway, and J. M. Forsythe (2012), Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations, Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL052094, since you ask....
I thought Lewis believed that climate scientists were part of some grand conspiracy, and the results could not be trusted?
That aside, the Geophys. Res. Letters* is a well respected publication with a number of papers that support the AGC theory with actual evidence, so typically you pick one paper and use that single paper to suggest that it was "game, set and match to the deniers" and ignore every other paper in the same journal.
And what does the paper show? Well the paper is about improving measurements by tweaking data using algorithms (something that denialists tend to criticise) and they only appear to have analysed a bit over 20 years of data. The paper is not trying to analyse water vapour trends - just to improve the techniques of measurement.
They also say " Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data". Which somehow becomes 'shown not to exist' - a non-sequitur.
*And I also found this post:
It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml).
Their conclusions: “statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent
Seriously, what the fuck?!?
Large chunks of ice break off things: "It must be global warming, the chunks are getting bigger!!!1!one!!eleven!"
Small chunks of ice break off things: "It must be global warming, the chunks are getting smaller!!!1!one!!eleven!"
Seriously, its exactly ****s (insert your own expletive, we like to offer choice) like you who give the whole GW argument a bad name.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
