|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 18, 2012 16:58:42 GMT
Mr. Green revisionism at work or just a peculiar date change?  "Turns out it was, but then he stumbled on something he didn’t expect to find. The date for the surfacing has been changed from March 17th, 1959 to August, 1959 (with no day given) in Wikipedia and in NAVSOURCE. He at first thought I’d made a mistake in citation, but it turns out dates have been changed since I wrote my original article on the USS Skate on April 26th, 2009. I wrote about how the original date remains on NAVSOURCE in the Wayback machine Anthony Watts says: March 17, 2012 at 11:50 pm (Edit) Navsource, in the Wayback machine, had it stated as March 17th 1959, just days before my original article. This is the April 18th 2009 snapshot from Wayback: web.archive.org/web/20090418161606/http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm The caption then reads: Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/ |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2012 19:53:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 19, 2012 1:32:13 GMT
So the scientists have spoken about AGW and the Arctic ice again! Maybe they polled and got a consensus. Or maybe it was the recent CME that caused the navigation of the whale to go a bit off. "Scientists Look Far to the North to Explain Young Whale in San Francisco Bay" "Recent sightings of a gray whale and her infant calf swimming near Alcatraz and Sausalito in San Francisco Bay illuminated a likely repercussion of melting polar ice, scientists said. " www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/us/scientists-look-for-reasons-for-changed-whale-behavior.html |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 19, 2012 3:21:52 GMT
So the scientists have spoken about AGW and the Arctic ice again! Maybe they polled and got a consensus. Or maybe it was the recent CME that caused the navigation of the whale to go a bit off. "Scientists Look Far to the North to Explain Young Whale in San Francisco Bay" "Recent sightings of a gray whale and her infant calf swimming near Alcatraz and Sausalito in San Francisco Bay illuminated a likely repercussion of melting polar ice, scientists said. " www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/us/scientists-look-for-reasons-for-changed-whale-behavior.htmlAppalling science writing, which the NYT was happy to put on its website, but it turns out it comes from a website called The Bay Citizen: www.baycitizen.org/about/The very idea that a whale in SF Bay would be the point of departure for rank conjecture posing as science and would be a front-of-website story at baycitizen.org is just hair-raising.  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 19, 2012 11:18:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Mar 20, 2012 11:51:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 20, 2012 12:21:09 GMT
Mr. Green revisionism at work or just a peculiar date change? "Turns out it was, but then he stumbled on something he didn’t expect to find. The date for the surfacing has been changed from March 17th, 1959 to August, 1959 (with no day given) in Wikipedia and in NAVSOURCE. He at first thought I’d made a mistake in citation, but it turns out dates have been changed since I wrote my original article on the USS Skate on April 26th, 2009. I wrote about how the original date remains on NAVSOURCE in the Wayback machine Anthony Watts says: March 17, 2012 at 11:50 pm (Edit) Navsource, in the Wayback machine, had it stated as March 17th 1959, just days before my original article. This is the April 18th 2009 snapshot from Wayback: web.archive.org/web/20090418161606/http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm The caption then reads: Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/I love these kind of things. The captain wrote a book  When they surfaced 17th March 1959 they left a cairn. The Skate surfaced at the North Pole on 17 March 1959 and conducted memorial services for the late Sir Hubert Wilkinswww.google.fi/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=Surface+at+the+Pole%3A+the+extraordinary+voyages+of+the+USS+Skate+%22The+skate+surfaced+at+the+north+pole+on+17+march+1959%22&oq=Surface+at+the+Pole%3A+the+extraordinary+voyages+of+the+USS+Skate+%22The+skate+surfaced+at+the+north+pole+on+17+march+1959%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=23656l48421l0l51437l56l56l0l0l0l0l281l3451l23.8.2l33l0&gs_l=serp.12...23656l48421l0l51437l56l56l0l0l0l0l281l3451l23j8j2l33l0.frgbld. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 20, 2012 12:59:41 GMT
Arctic Ice continues to expand. Temps are still seasonal to below in Northern Canada. As always, we shall have to see how the Fram works this year as to what a min will look like.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 20, 2012 13:28:29 GMT
I wonder if the skate could poke a hole thru the ice at the north pole this month?  |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Mar 20, 2012 19:10:20 GMT
I wonder if the skate could poke a hole thru the ice at the north pole this month? Which brings up the question, "Have other subs surfaced in the Arctic in more recent years?" With all that rotten ice it should be easy. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Mar 21, 2012 1:31:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 22, 2012 13:31:32 GMT
|
|
tenuc
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by tenuc on Mar 23, 2012 9:55:24 GMT
Lots of melting ice also results in a lot of ocean cooling, as we've seen from satellite date... www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E_SST_thru_Oct_09.jpgWhile the current sea ice maximum is high, this doesn't help prediction of what the minimum will be... ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.pngThere is anecdotal evidence, like the nuclear sub pictures, which show that the Arctic sea ice has been low before the start of the satellite observations. These often presage colder NH temperate zone winters, as back in the late 60's/70's, when talk of the coming ice age dominated the media... :-) Seems climate scientists fail to recognise climate cycles! |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Mar 24, 2012 0:27:26 GMT
"Arctic Ice continues to expand. Temps are still seasonal to below in Northern Canada. As always, we shall have to see how the Fram works this year as to what a min will look like."
I think it is important to keep in mind the expansion is still below the 1979-2011 mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2012 1:04:12 GMT
Glenn:
It is right on the 1979-2006 mean. I don't know what the addition of 2007-2011 would add. Potentially, a slightly lower mean?
|
|
