|
Post by icefisher on Dec 26, 2014 3:18:40 GMT
“We know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the main cause of the warming of the earth’s climate that has been measured over the past few decades. The warming is unequivocal… While the climate of the earth has changed over the millennia as a result of natural factors — principally changes in the tilt and orientation of the earth’s axis and rotation, and in the shape of its orbit around the sun — those changes occur far too gradually to have noticeable effects over a period of mere decades. In their current phases, moreover, they would be gradually cooling the earth — taking us to another ice age — if they weren’t being more than offset by human-caused warming.” Proof positive that one can have a numerous traits of high intelligence and still be a moron. One has to completely don the idiot blinders and not recognize the fact that the "pause" proves beyond any reasonable doubt that natural change is not as gradual as advertised. Its especially poignant that the "pause" has now exceeded in length of time the length of time that Ben Santer used in his statistical analysis to produce the declaration in IPCC AR3 that the warming was unequivocally human caused. One does not need to do any science to conclude that Santer's statistics are trash when you become aware of how the initial statistics was done. It has been completely refuted. If Santer redid his study today he would have to come to the completely opposite conclusion. Time wears on all statistical analysis and Santer's analysis is now older than its period of initial analysis and all warming has disappeared. The only questions that remain is whether increases in CO2 cause any warming at all, one could do a statistical analysis that puts the human caused effects at 50% of what Santer and the IPCC in AR3 came up with. However that itself might be trash and likely is if there is anything to the astrometeorologist's 72 year cycle. If thats true then the cooling phase is yet to come. 2017 by Astromet.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 26, 2014 3:30:53 GMT
The stats used in most climate papers is so crappy it isn't funny. Climate science seems to get a continuous bye except for the likes of MacKintyre. It is to the point anymore of a huge pile of garbage.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 26, 2014 5:15:03 GMT
The stats used in most climate papers is so crappy it isn't funny. Climate science seems to get a continuous bye except for the likes of MacKintyre. It is to the point anymore of a huge pile of garbage. MacIntyre is a darned good statistician and has expertly dissect some of the bad statistics from the likes of Michael Mann and others. Mathematically Santer's statistics are not dodgy but there is two aspects to all statistics, one mathematical the other subjective in ascribing qualities to attributes. Attributes are a judgmental aspect of statistics that is given wide latitude in the absence of evidence that refutes the qualities assigned to an attribute. Much of MacIntyre's work has gone down this road in questioning sample selections. (experience with salted mines being apparently the primary basis of his experience). But one of the problems with Santer's attributes is the assumption that 17 years is adequate, while everybody probably should have been looking skeptically at the assumption of ignorance "no other natural force exists", Santer was not as far into questionable practices as some of his collegues were. Currently its a fact that CO2 is not the only force of sufficient robustness (whatever that is) to change climate. What has caused the 18 year pause is at least equally strong or there would be no pause. Santer's statistics would be allowed in a public financial document in the absence of knowledge that its key assumption that nothing else exists that can explain the modern climate change is false. That worked nicely in the year 2000 when IPCC AR3 was released. However, accountants in a financial setting would review the assumptions carefully every year to see if the key assumption was still in place. Since at the time there weren't any major changes that occurred that lasted longer than about 5 to 7 years, it should have gone basically unchallenged until about 2007, add maybe a couple more years of auditor alarm bells going off, depending upon materiality, with arguments between management and the auditors escalating as the pause grew, Santer jumped in with his claim that one should wait at least 17 years. Of course he had no scientific argument for that length of time and he no doubt would have made it longer if it weren't a fact his statistics and conclusions of irrefutable human caused climate change was based on a warming trend that only lasted 17 years. If he had said 18 years he would be admitting his study was trash and should not be relied upon. Now that the pause is 18 years Santer does not appear to be saying anything. Its much easier to sit back and let the moron politicians take it down the road so the public largesse continues to flow fraudulently into special interest coffers.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 27, 2014 0:14:03 GMT
The stats used in most climate papers is so crappy it isn't funny. Climate science seems to get a continuous bye except for the likes of MacKintyre. It is to the point anymore of a huge pile of garbage. MacIntyre is a darned good statistician and has expertly dissect some of the bad statistics from the likes of Michael Mann and others. Mathematically Santer's statistics are not dodgy but there is two aspects to all statistics, one mathematical the other subjective in ascribing qualities to attributes. Attributes are a judgmental aspect of statistics that is given wide latitude in the absence of evidence that refutes the qualities assigned to an attribute. Much of MacIntyre's work has gone down this road in questioning sample selections. (experience with salted mines being apparently the primary basis of his experience). But one of the problems with Santer's attributes is the assumption that 17 years is adequate, while everybody probably should have been looking skeptically at the assumption of ignorance "no other natural force exists", Santer was not as far into questionable practices as some of his collegues were. Currently its a fact that CO2 is not the only force of sufficient robustness (whatever that is) to change climate. What has caused the 18 year pause is at least equally strong or there would be no pause. Santer's statistics would be allowed in a public financial document in the absence of knowledge that its key assumption that nothing else exists that can explain the modern climate change is false. That worked nicely in the year 2000 when IPCC AR3 was released. However, accountants in a financial setting would review the assumptions carefully every year to see if the key assumption was still in place. Since at the time there weren't any major changes that occurred that lasted longer than about 5 to 7 years, it should have gone basically unchallenged until about 2007, add maybe a couple more years of auditor alarm bells going off, depending upon materiality, with arguments between management and the auditors escalating as the pause grew, Santer jumped in with his claim that one should wait at least 17 years. Of course he had no scientific argument for that length of time and he no doubt would have made it longer if it weren't a fact his statistics and conclusions of irrefutable human caused climate change was based on a warming trend that only lasted 17 years. If he had said 18 years he would be admitting his study was trash and should not be relied upon. Now that the pause is 18 years Santer does not appear to be saying anything. Its much easier to sit back and let the moron politicians take it down the road so the public largesse continues to flow fraudulently into special interest coffers. climateaudit.org/?s=santer
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 27, 2014 18:03:11 GMT
Oh permafrost scientists....you so silly! You'll not like what the science team from the Siberian times has been saying about the Yamal region then? Or the last two reports of CH4 releases in E.S.S. and Kara ( and the amounts involved)? Ah well! You can just ignore all that as well....... I see Fram is back in action this past month or so? Two years of little or no export ( even reverse flow!) appear to be coming to a close? Piomas should reflect this in its Jan report ( you can't keep on losing 2.5m ice and replacing it with sub 1m ice and it not be reflected in the volume increase?) I think it might be time to consider what an 'average' export/weather year will do to the pack? We can't keep hoping for no export/cloudy/cool conditions to persist now can we? We saw what the 'average' years of 2010 and 2012 did so maybe we have our analogues? I suppose it would also be wise to remember what they found when looking at the 'perfect melt storm' of 2007? seeing as 2017 is the earliest we could expect a return of the synoptic maybe we ought to think of what a year of both high export and in-situ melt would mean to the post 2010 pack???
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 27, 2014 18:24:52 GMT
Graywolf: When looking at previous times when the Arctic Ice pack experienced a rapid decline, do you really see this one as any different?
Isn't it truly to be expected in the time frame that we are in of an interglacial?
To me, a very large question is, why are we not as warm as MIS-6? We have a long way to go. What sets this interglacial so far apart? The orbital characteristics are similar, yet the temps presented aren't even close.
And to be very frank, why would this interglacial be any different than past interglacials in regards to ice melt/sea level rise etc? We know from low resolution temp proxies that we most certainly have a ways to go on the up side of warmth.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 27, 2014 21:47:11 GMT
Oh permafrost scientists....you so silly! You'll not like what the science team from the Siberian times has been saying about the Yamal region then? Or the last two reports of CH4 releases in E.S.S. and Kara ( and the amounts involved)? Ah well! You can just ignore all that as well....... I see Fram is back in action this past month or so? Two years of little or no export ( even reverse flow!) appear to be coming to a close? Piomas should reflect this in its Jan report ( you can't keep on losing 2.5m ice and replacing it with sub 1m ice and it not be reflected in the volume increase?) I think it might be time to consider what an 'average' export/weather year will do to the pack? We can't keep hoping for no export/cloudy/cool conditions to persist now can we? We saw what the 'average' years of 2010 and 2012 did so maybe we have our analogues? I suppose it would also be wise to remember what they found when looking at the 'perfect melt storm' of 2007? seeing as 2017 is the earliest we could expect a return of the synoptic maybe we ought to think of what a year of both high export and in-situ melt would mean to the post 2010 pack??? --but if global warming continues at the current pace, just 1 percent of this land could remain permafrost by the year 2100-- I was thinking about lines like this, they make it sound as if something us happening which just currently isn't...don't know why it is necessary to be misleading with facts? You raise some interesting points about the state of ice/permafrost....always good to be subjective.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 27, 2014 22:26:39 GMT
I was thinking about lines like this, they make it sound as if something us happening which just currently isn't...don't know why it is necessary to be misleading with facts? You have to remember this is a political fight. Facts won't get them the changes they seek. They have to mislead in order to make the policy shifts. If you like your plan you can keep it. You are racist if you criticize the president. Etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 28, 2014 13:37:22 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK1dejIhRmAIt would seem others have a similar concern about the recent 'uptick' in Fram? The above shows Fram over 2014 , note it stalling in May and the ice going completely by july. Whilst this was occurring the ice was amassing behind so the Atlantic sector held onto the majority of the 'gains' we saw in 2014. These 'gains' are what is now emptying into Fram The reds in the image below). neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d0b24d13970c-piWith the low now north of Hawaii looking to introduce warm tropical airs into the basin via Bering we may also see a stall in ice thickening over on the Pacific side? It will be of interest to see the Jan Piomas figures as last winter saw the gains made wiped out in Jan and Feb as warm air halted ice growth. This year we have losses from the Atlantic side ( 2.5m+ ice) and warmth entering the basin? Who said the Arctic wasn't interesting in winter???
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 29, 2014 4:16:50 GMT
I expect next years arctic summer ice to be less than this year. Thats the pattern. After a big loss there is a couple of years of recovery. The big question is if there is enough inertia still in the system to drive ice to a record low or if we have already seen the multi-decadal low in this low ice cycle and we will begin to see gradual recovery or if the recovery does not get underway until after the Big Cool.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 29, 2014 6:34:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 29, 2014 12:49:36 GMT
It would seem others have a similar concern about the recent 'uptick' in Fram? The above shows Fram over 2014 , note it stalling in May and the ice going completely by july. Whilst this was occurring the ice was amassing behind so the Atlantic sector held onto the majority of the 'gains' we saw in 2014. I would not be too concerned (or is that excited rather than concerned?) about the ice flowing out of the Fram Strait given the surface winds that are now developing.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 30, 2014 0:29:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Dec 30, 2014 1:44:24 GMT
Global Sea Ice 2nd Highest For Day 361 (27 Dec) Only 2007 was higher for day 361.When it "melts" it's global warming. When it expands, it's global warming. It's amazing what global warming can do!
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 30, 2014 5:35:11 GMT
End of 2014 and global sea ice near historical maximums. As far as an AGW crisis, what really is there left to say? When will the madness end?
|
|