Huge waves detected in Arctic waters for 1st time

That one freaked me out for a bit. Then I remembered...hang on, it's just the CBC.

I follow the ice graphs, you see. It's a hobby. This year has been about what one might expect of a year when the multi-year ice is rebuilding.

When the CBC was freaking out about big waves I started to get worried. I thought, "Oh no, not another weird year like 2012 when things were going along fine, and then boom - major freaky storm out of nowhere."

But like I said...it was just the CBC.

Turns out they are talking about the strange storm of 2012. I checked out the graph for 2014. Nothing to worry about so far.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

I just remembered something. Globally the sea ice is setting records for extent this year. Perhaps that's why the CBC is faking hysteria about old, weird, arctic ice events, and trying to make them sound current.

Also I have some suspicion about those claims.

Aren't they claiming the ice was way lower in the Beaufort and that was what caused the waves. Not a major storm, which is what I heard.

OK, so if you check out the graph linked in the previous post, the ice was above the mean then something happened around the end of June and the graph line just nose-dived.

If you check out this gizmo that allows you to compare years of ice you'll see nothing was unusual about the ice on June 30 2012.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 30&sy=1995

So I don't know. Has anybody read the study? How do they explain that? Why wouldn't the original explanation of freaky storm to explain 2012 make more sense?

I don't think I've seen anything about global sea ice setting records this year. Antarctic sea ice has, but in the arctic there has been a very pronounced drop in sea ice since measurements began in 1979.

Whoa!

Probably stuff I just see out the corner of my eye at the aggregate sites. When you click the links you find yourself places like that Goddard guy you don't like. I don't know his story. He might be more a hobbyist. He likes to make graphs. I know that.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... -recorded/

If you go to the more mainstream record it looks like global sea ice has been staying above the mean for 2014 but not setting records.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pa ... -ice-page/

I'm just wondering why the hysterics are choosing now to get so desperate for a sea ice story. That record global sea ice thing I thought I saw was one guess.

(Don't be thrown off by the Watt's name on the second link. He aggregates the mainstream records.)

Seriously?

Arctic Sea ice 2012 vs 1995.jpg

No difference at all.

And of course, the best part:

Arctic Sea disclaimer.jpg



You didn't read the study? Shouldn't that be your first step, before trying to disprove it?

Let me help you out:



Arctic Sea wave extent 2012.jpg

So the storm was a one time event, but the waves as measured are an increasing event, year over year.



What some see as 'hysteria' others see as a 'pattern' or 'trend'. And once again, Science doesn't depend on 'gut feelings'. Observation. Data. Theories and experiments to prove conclusions. That is Science.

Whatever. There's no record sea ice. You believe what you want to believe. And don't be so disingenuous as to imply that Goddard and WUWT are "aggregate sites."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia







Each month warmer than this month last year, stronger and more frequent storms, longer and more prolonged droughts . . .and never stories about longer wet spells, cooler temperatures or weaker storms. Seeing an upward trend in temperatures, with no oscillation toward downward temperatures isn't an error. Of all the stories we post on the environment, there are definite trends.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... surprises/

And from 2008:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-warming/

The fact that we are seeing large arctic seas never before ice free, and not thicker ice, should be an indication as to a 'trend'. And it's certainly not 'hysterical'.

Whatever. There's no record sea ice. You believe what you want to believe. And don't be so disingenuous as to imply that Goddard and WUWT are "aggregate sites."

Goddard is the place I'm telling you I linked to off the aggregate sites. Yes, Watts is an aggregate or aggregator website. It aggregates links to information from other other sites. And its aggregate of sea ice records is reputable by any standards. Are you saying its not? Which record there do you find disreputable?

"Aggregator refers to a web site or computer software that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator

To be honest though I saw the claims of "global sea ice record" on a different site that aggregates links called "Climate Depot". Actually warmists find that one more disreputable, because there's questionable financing.

No there's no global sea ice record although global sea ice has been more above the mean in 2014. Again I only mentioned the possibility of such a record, because I'm wondering why now on these unsupported claims.

Yes Doc, I said unsupported. The claim suggests only global warming and giant melts in sea ice can explain an increase in wave height coming into the Beaufort sea.

You suggest a trend. I say I remember two reports of large storms breaking up sea ice. One in 2007 one in 2012. Storms create waves. And if you graph the waves over the last 15 years of melting ice where there is a trend of increased melt you can attribute the trend to either trending ice melt increase or two radical storm years affecting the short term trend. I think the Arctic ice melt trend is about 15 to twenty years isn't it?

Even with your circles I don't see anything so glaring in melt that only it could explain increased waves. But look at this one then...

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 30&sy=2014

If it's a trend, why isn't this Beaufort trend happening in the Beaufort this year? Why was it necessary to make an example of an extreme year from 2 years ago if the point they wanted to make is what's happening now? Could it be that it's not happening now and that's why they want to dredge up the most extreme year of the whole satellite record from two years ago?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but here's another one. Why do such questions appear to make you so angry?

Hey would you like to go off topic for a bit and examine those claims you just made concerning remarkable, unheard of weather? I suggest they're false.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Frozen water can't make waves. Perhaps you have an alternate site that says it can?



I don't suggest anything. The published study does. And the study goes back to the late 1800's. But anyone who read it would know that.



Ok there, Mr. Magoo. Perhaps it's because this study started 2 years ago, and doesn't include current data? Did you think to check if there was current data first?



Angry? And yet none of my words are hostile. Where do you get these notions, or are you just trying (and failing) to push my buttons?

If you wish to change the subject and not deal with the one at hand, feel free!

WUWT exists to further a particular viewpoint. That is its raison d'etre. For that reason I wouldn't refer to it as an aggregator site. I'm sure the links from the site are fine, but the original content is questionable.

I wonder if Goddard got booted off WUWT. There were a couple of embarrassing retractions of Goddard posts.

Are you sure? Because I just read it, and damned if I can find data from the 1800s. Who would even keep data on wave intensity in the Beaufort sea in the 1800s? Who was even measuring arctic ice extent pre satellite?

In fact the paper I read said,



Are you sure you read that paper?