* Posts by pjclarke

8 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jul 2015

Arctic summer ice cover is 31st highest ever recorded


?? A smaller-draft boat has more route choices, so could avoid the ice. To amplify the point, a kayak is less sensitive to the presence of ice than a tanker.

The point is, the Amundsen comparison is disingenous, the passage was declared 'fully navigable' in 2007, which it certainly was not in 1906.


Amundsen used a smallish fishing boat with a tiny draft,to get through he had to use routes where the water depth was < 1m, and it took him 2 winters.

And the Manhattan was the biggest icebreaker in history, a little fact a serious and credible journalist might think worth inserting into an article about sea ice.LOL.

Next year a luxury liner is scheduled to make the trip ...

Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office


Re: Article based on report from a government agency

Erm ... read the report, then read Lewis's traducing of it, then see how true your 'based on' is. I'll give you a hint:

While global surface warming slowed from the end of the 20th century, our best estimates

of global mean temperature for 2015 are at or near record levels, and this is consistent

with climate predictions for similarly high values that we made last year

(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast). Record or near

record temperatures last year and so far this year, along with the expected warming

effects of El Niño, mean that decadal temperature trends are likely to increase.

Scorchio! This June was the sixty-sixth hottest on record


Re: I absolutely disagree with straight manipulation of historical data

Raw data collated here:



NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html

CRU http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/

NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

(See also Karl et al 2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5632

That’s not an exhaustive list, but should get you started.

In addition to the NASA dataset being completely open source they also publish the source code to their analysis, and there's a project that has refactored it and guess what? All analyses show the same unequivocal warming.


Re: Notice anything?

So, a met station is relocated up a hill. After the relocation the readings are, on average 0.5C lower. Would you use the raw data or would you adjust? Or a thermometer is replaced with a newer model, after which it records 0.1C lower, compared with nearby stations. Would you use the raw data? Or the time of day the readings are taken is shifted, which somewhat counterintuitively, introduces a bias. Would you use the raw data or would you adjust?

And if you DO want the raw data, its online. Fill your boots.


Re: the adjusted global numbers actually trend *lower* than the raw data.

By the way, all that is needed to be said about the "science" in climate science is that they never released the unadjusted set. It took hacking the lab and releasing the data on wikileaks to get the unadjusted set and the "methodology" for adjusting it out.

Pure fiction.


Re: I absolutely disagree with straight manipulation of historical data

ALL the adjustments are documented in the peer-reviewed literature, virtually all the raw data is freely available, and the tiny percentage that is not, largely because it has some commercial value to the originators, could not possibly alter any major scientific conclusion.

(Hint: not everything you read at WattsUpWithThat is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.)


Re: the adjusted global numbers actually trend *lower* than the raw data.

That is correct - non-adjusted numbers result in stations which were in the countryside ending over time inside urban areas as they grow. This in turn raises their unadjusted average by a few degrees

No, if you read the analysis by Hausfather, its the adjustments to Sea Surface Temperatures that lower the average. Urbanisation is dealt with differently, NASA for example use only rural stations in their trend analysis, and get a similar result to other agencies.

Oh, and the analysis by the 'Russian Met'. Was that the one actually by the IEA, a right wing 'think tank'?