Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

Yup.I read your posts and understood what you were trying to do.

 

No, no, I do not wish to make a mistake and why I ask the question about your point. See I read the report, I see the graph, I see the 72 year reference, yet I see nothing pertaining to 2010. So the link would help me so I don't make a mistake.

 

Link to your assertion about Kobashi claim.

 

Read this post, and let me know if you have any further questions.

 

Yes I'd like to have the link you are quoting from.

 

So you still don't have anything other than what Kobashi actually stated, "Current decadal average temperature in Greenland is not outside of natural variability of the past 4000 years," which is in complete opposition to what you are claiming.

 

Kobashi's paper can be found here. The 2010 temperature datum can be found on Figure 1 at the top right.

 

So thanks for posting a rebuttal of yourself.

 

aaaand now, it seems, we're on to the Adventures of Hoosier Can't Read. What I've got is the actual temperature in 2010, as reported by Kobashi. So let me ask you the same question Flogger couldn't answer, and let's see if you do any better:

What was the temperature at the GISP2 site in Greenland for the year 2010, according to Kobashi et al.?

 

According to Kobashi et al, cooler than 72 other decades and within the norm of natural variability. Next?

 

So this is the data you are hanging on, eh from the report on page 6 of 6? And I quote:

"The correlation coefficient with the
AWS record for the 23 overlapping complete years (1988–
2010) is r = 0.63. The reconstruction underestimates the
extremes such as the 1991–1992 Pinatubo cooling [Box,
2002] and the 2010 high temperature (Figure 1, top)."

And might I add the spike referenced for 2010 was from the AWS and not the cores. So for me apples and oranges. See the AWS is some 20KM away and elevation may be a contributor.

 

Oh really? Please name any of those 72 decades warmer than the year 2010. (The Adventures of Hoosier Can't Read, Chapter 2.)

And please answer this question:
What was the temperature at the GISP2 site in Greenland for the year 2010, according to Kobashi et al.?

 

Reference the paper you linked to. Do read the links you post?

 

So he's referencing AWS data against the core samples the rest of the graph was constructed with. So it is an anomaly apples to oranges representation. It only goes back to 1988. So he's saying disregard the 72 warmest dates and focus that in 2010 with the use of AWS electronic records which he doesn't have for the 72 warmest other years. So again, a trick to pull a red herring from a hat. Oh and he's convienently ommitting the 1991 to 1992 coldest year with the use of the AWS.

And so I'm back to what is his point?

 

Well, I think he is making his point obviously clear even if he doesn't understand the point he is making. I will leave it up to you to figure that out but it should be obvious.

 

I am curious to what it is he is actually concerned with.

What I'm more interested in is the sea level rise threats and how much ice is actually at risk to falling into the oceans. The interesting part for me is the 1912 year where there was a record number of icebergs in the Atlantic 1200 vs 500 average. It happens to coincide with the Titanic sinking and why they believe the boat was at risk. Those icebergs were from Greenland, I don't recall the water levels increasing due to those extra 700 icebergs.

I'm sure he has some counterpoint he can make or excuse.

 

If you have evidence that the AWS temperatures are wrong, please present evidence, not speculation. In the meantime, it's entirely appropriate to assume that the data in Kobashi et al. is correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Deniers: never a direct answer. Never a thought. Never a shred of evidence. Just meaningless FUD.

If the answer is in the cited paper, perhaps you might be able to read the paper and provide the answer. Or perhaps you just can't read.

The Adventures of Hoosier-Can't-Read, Chapter 3.

 

LOL, you supplied the evidence and you don't even realize it. I quoted from the paper.

 

Did you read my post? I said the temperatures were from AWS from 1988 and therefore cannot be included in the data records with the icecore data. It is apples and oranges. I never said it was wrong.

So what is it you're concerned with?

 

Instead, I'll give you an actual citation that addresses your interest:

Khan, Shfaqat A., Kurt H. Kjær, Michael Bevis, Jonathan L. Bamber, John Wahr, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Anders A. Bjørk et al. "Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming." Nature Climate Change (2014).

 

So are you ignoring my 1912 update concerning the record number of icebergs that hit the water from Greenland. And so you know, the average is 500 icebergs that float after falling from Greenland's ice shelf since before year 1912. Which for me is a key indicator that snow rebuilds, freezes and falls off annually. So?

 

So the key question is whether the loss of mass from iceberg calving is greater or less than the gain of mass from snowfall. Because that is what determines whether or not the icecap is growing or shrinking, and whether the sea is rising or falling as a result.

And the answer is:

Icecaps are losing mass. And the sea is rising.

 

Have been since the beginning of the Holocene.

 

So, again you dodge the 1912 question. So what say you?

 

He also has dodged the fact that the paper he posted refutes his other claim.