h1

Definition: Barber Event

May 9, 2015

A monumental climatic event is unfolding before our eyes this year.  The ramifications will affect entire human race, nay, the entire community of Gaia dwelling souls.

 David Barber, 21st Century Arctic Explorer, has been warning us for years, but too many of us have been blinded by our greed for oil and money.  The Arctic will go completely ice free this summer.  This will no doubt force polar bears into extinction and set off a globe spreading chain reaction of extinction and desolation.

This extraordinary occasion deserves its own geological name.  I propose we call it the “Barber Event.”

Here is what will happen to Arctic sea ice…

SSMI ice extent 150506 v3

Related Posts

Arctic sea ice gone by 2015? A challenge to David Barber.

2 to 1 odds for Prof. David Barber

10 to 1 odds for Prof. David Barber

Don’t Panic – The Arctic has survived warmer temperatures in the past

Arctic to be ice free within four months

h1

Arctic to be ice free within four months

May 7, 2015

A milestone than many are dreading will arrive within the next four months.  The Arctic will be ice free, probably for the first time in the last 6000 or so years.  This event has been long predicted by the eminent Professor David Barber.  In 2008 the Winnipeg Free Press quoted Barber…

“We’ll always have ice in the winter time in the Arctic, but it will always be first-year ice,” Barber said on Friday.  “2015 is our estimate for summer free (of) ice.”

As Barber said, the Arctic will always have ice in the winter, but some winters may have more or less than others.  Data collected over time has allowed the calculation of the average ice extent for each day of the year.  Of course, that average is higher in the winter and lower in the summer.  The lowest average occurs in September after the long summer melt.  Deviations from this average are called the “anomaly.”

In September the average ice extent drops down to about 4.5 million square kilometers.  But in recent years the anomaly has been negative.  So, the ice extent in September has been less than 4.5 million square kilometers.

Barber made his prediction in 2008 after that the previous year’s anomaly had dropped to about 2.5 million square kilometers.  That is, after that year’s summer melt there was only about 2 million square kilometers of ice left.  The strange thing is, six out of seven years since Barber made his prediction the anomaly has been higher (i.e. there was a greater ice extent) after the summer melt than in 2007.  This might surprise you, because you would expect that anomaly to get lower and lower (more and more negative) as you approached the dreaded ice free summer.

One might think that this strange circumstance indicates that Barber was wrong about his prediction.  But that can’t be, because he is a SCIENTIST (SCIENTIST, Scientist, scientist, scientist).

So here is what we can expect the anomaly to do this year…

If Professor David Barber is right, then the Arctic ice extent anomaly will look something like this.

If Professor David Barber is right, then the 2015 Arctic ice extent anomaly will look something like this.

Barber could have made a lot of money (for his favorite charity) off of this prediction, because there was some blogging kook who gave him 10 to 1 odds that it wouldn’t happen.  But I am sure he felt it was much more important to remain the impartial SCIENTIST (SCIENTIST, Scientist, scientist, scientist). 

h1

A new round of Antarctic ice alarm

March 28, 2015

The alarm of a catastrophic meltdown of the Antarctic cycles up and down every year or two.  A journal article says the rate of melt is increasing, the popular press picks up on it and breathlessly warns about huge sea level rises sinking coastal cities around the world. We are told that x number of gigatonnes of ice per year are being dumped off the continent and wreaking their havoc on the world.   Then another study says “not so fast,” the mass losses aren’t that great after all.  Or, some crazy old skeptics ruin all the fun by recklessly bringing some logic to the discussion.

Today we have “Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating” (Paolo, et. al., Science, 2015).  The abstract warns us

“Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012.”

310 km3 per year (roughly the same as 310 gigatonnes per year) is pretty high compared to most other estimates. So you will probably see many references to this number because the bigger and scarier the more the press likes it.  But for the more sober minded, consider the following comparison of ice loss estimates from “Ice sheet mass balance and climate change” (Hanna, et. al., Nature, 2013)

Various estimates of ice mass change in the antarctic

Various estimates of ice mass change in the Antarctic

How does the recent Science paper compare?  If we place it on estimate plots from Hanna’s paper it would look like this..

Ice sheet mass balance and climate change - Hanna - Nature - 2013 v4

The Paolo Nature paper is an outlier.  But lets take them at their word.  They say that the Antarctic, on average, shed about 300 more Gigatonnes of ice per year during the 2003 to 2012 period than during the 1994 to 2003 period.  Where did all this ice go?  In to the oceans, of course.  That is why we have the great sea level rise scare.

So it follows that the sea level should have been rising faster during the 2003 to 2012 period than during the 1994 to 2003 year period.  How much faster?  Well, every gigatonne of water dumped into the oceans raises the sea level by about 2.78 microns. So 300 gigatonnes of extra water per year would raise the sea levels about an extra 840 microns a year, or about an extra 0.84 mm per year.  We are told that satellite data indicates that the global sea level is rising about 3 mm per year.  0.84 mm per year is a significant fraction of 3 mm per year, so such a rate increase should really stand out in the sea level rise data..

Well, here is some of that satellite sea level rise data…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This discussion has been about ice that is moving from the land to the sea and raising the sea level.  But let’s take a quick moment to look at the sea ice that surrounds Antarctica.  While this ice does not contribute to changes in the sea level, it does say something about the conditions in that area.

seaice_anomaly_antarctic - Cryosphere Today 150328

Do you see a trend?  I see a trend.  And I know there are variety of “just-so stories” to explain away this trend, but I am unconvinced.

Conclusion

Between 1994 and 2003 the average sea level rise rate was 3.77 mm/yr, according to satellite data (University of Colorado).  If the Antarctic were depositing an average of about 300 more gigatonnes of water in the ocean per year in the following years (2003 to 2012), then the average sea level rise rage from 2003 to 2012 should have increased by about 0.84 m/yr, to 4.61 mm/yr.

Instead, the average sea level rise rate from 2003 to 2012 dropped to 2.66 mm/yr.

The claim of a huge rise in ice loss from the Antarctic over this period is quite implausible.

h1

Alarmism at Scientific American (again)

February 24, 2015

Scientific American is such an embarrassment.  It’s sad, because I used to like that magazine.

Once again they are shills for the global warming alarmists, scaring people with wildly exaggerated claims about sea level rise.  This time Colin Sullivan writes that the sea level at New York City could increase by six feet by 2100.

Heat waves and floods caused by climate change could mean disaster for the Big Apple’s five boroughs by the end of the century, with sea levels now predicted by a new report to climb by as much as 6 feet by 2100.

Really?  6 feet by 2100????

First, lets start with a minor point.  Real scientists and science writers usually don’t use “feet,” they use meters.  So why does Scientific American use “feet?”  My guess is that it is some linear combination of the following two reasons: the Scientific America audience isn’t really scientifically literate these days, and “6 feet” sounds like more than “2 meters” (even though it is actually slightly less).

Now, lets get to the major point.  Any responsible journalist writing about sea level rise in at New York City would present the historical data.  There are nearly 150 years of sea level rise data available for The Battery (at the southern tip of Manhattan) from NOAA

8518750[1]

Do you notice that the sea level rise is less than 3 mm/year?  Can you detect an acceleration over the past 150 years?  The sea level at the Battery will go up about 22 cm by 2100 at the present rate.  To go up 6 feet (1.83 meters) by 2100 it would have to look something like this…

Battery sea level rise extended 4

There is a part of me that wants to heap invective on Colin Sullivan and Scientific American, but I realize that while that may make me feel better, it will not help the situation.  So I will simply ask them, “Why don’t you show the actual historic data?”  It seems like a no-brainer, and anything less is journalistic malpractice.

Deniers and Alarmists

People like me have been branded with the “denier” epithet.  Why this particular word?  We are called “deniers” an ugly attempt to link us with Holocaust deniers.  It is an inaccurate and unfair moniker.

But we tend to call those at the other end of the spectrum “alarmists.”  Is that an unfair accusation?  I don’t think so, and this Scientific American article demonstrates why.  They pretend to be an objective source, but leave out the most pertinent data.  I can only think of two possible reasons for this: they are just stupid, or they want to cause a state of alarm.  I may be charitable in assigning the second motive.  “Alarmist” is an accurate and fair epithet for them.

h1

Strategy for Protecting Freedom of Speech

January 17, 2015

The world is grappling with how to handle Islamist extremists.  The lynch pin of advanced civilizations is the freedom of speech, and the Islamist extremist now see this as one of our vulnerabilities.  By taking down this one pillar, the integrity of the entire structure trembles.

I propose what I will call the “expanding infidel group” strategy.  

The center of the infidel group will be those individuals or organizations who have already published ideas, including cartoons and satire, that the Islamic extremist condemn with threat of death.  

The outside part of the infidel group will be individuals or organizations who pledge support to the inside part.  Specifically, they will pledge to also publish ideas that the Islamic extremists object to if somebody from the inside of the infidel group is attacked.  

Attacks on our freedom of speech would then be guaranteed to expand the very thing they attack. 

Further, civilized societies will step up retribution against individuals who carry out attacks, as well as their social support groups and supporting organizations.  

We have seen this already happening in effect with the courageous groups that have defied the Islamic extremists by republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and the 50-fold increase in the sales of the Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre, and the rapid advance of various European police forces on suspected terrorist groups.

I propose the above as an organizing principle.

I would say to US news organizations that have not published the offending cartoons: it is not too late to do so, or pledge to do so (or more) if further attacks occur.

h1

Seven IPCC Claims Refuted

December 8, 2014

Roger Andrews addresses seven claims of the IPCC Working Group 2.  I know that oil people are supposed to be automatically suspect, but open your mind and read what Andrews has to say as he handily addresses these points…

Claim 1: Glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change

Claim 2: Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges ….. in response to ongoing climate change.

Claim 3: While only a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet to climate change, natural global climate change at rates slower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years.

Claim 4: Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts.

Claim 5: Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability.

Claim 6: At present the worldwide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small … and is not well quantified. However, there has been increased heat-related mortality and decreased cold-related mortality in some regions as a result of warming.

Claim 7: Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change.

Here is a teaser.

Part of Andrews’ responses for claims 1 and 4…

Glacier length

World Grain Production

Read Roger Andrews’ Latest IPCC Findings Undermine Climate Change Claims at OilPrice.com.

h1

Victor Davis Hansen has his say about “climate change”

December 3, 2014

Hansen sums up the phenomena of global warming alarmism in two ripping paragraphs…

Take also global warming — for Secretary of State John Kerry, the world’s greatest challenge. Once the planet did not heat up in the last 18 years, and once the ice of the polar caps did not melt away, global warming begat climate change. The new nomenclature was a clever effort to link all occasional weather extremities to some underlying and fundamental climate disruption. Brilliant though the strategy was — the opposites of cold/hot, drought/deluges, and calm/storms could now all be used as proof of permanent climate change — global warming finally was hoist on its own petard: If it caused everything, then it caused nothing.

So, in the end, what was global warming? It seems to have grown up largely as a late-20th-century critique of global-market capitalism by elites who had done so well by it that they had won the luxury of caricaturing the very source of their privilege. Global warming proved a near secular religion that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning among mostly secular Western grandees. In reality, the global-warming creed had scant effect on the lifestyles of the high priests who promulgated it. Al Gore did not cut back on his jet-fueled and lucrative proselytizing. Obama did not become the first president who, on principle, traveled with a reduced and green entourage. Solyndra did not run a model transparent company as proof of the nobility of the cause. As in the case of illegal immigration, the losers from the global-warming fad are the working and middle classes, who do not have the capital to be unharmed by the restrictions on cheap, carbon-based fuels.

See Hansen’s comments on global warming alarmism and other topics in Liberalism in Ruins.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers