|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 1, 2015 11:23:18 GMT
Still quiet on here? Does that mean Sea ice is back in the pack of other years? To me it looks like the pre 05' years with both a total melt out in Ross and the Weddell Polynia making an appearance? Is this the first signs of the flip in the naturals that we have seen in the Antarctic? We are also in the portion of melt season where we see major calvings ( as wave action is allowed free play on Shelf fronts) so worth keeping an eye on? Then we need to see if we get a poor ice gain re-freeze as storms eat away at the ice edge over Weddell and Ross Seas? Interesting reasoning GW The Antarctic extent is indeed just into the 2-sigma area from the 1981-2010 average. However, if you see 2-Sigma as reason to crow about 'melting' then if you look at the Arctic You should also be excited that it is back within 2-sigma of the 1981-2010 average and is therefore recovering. You wouldn't want to be seen to be changing horses just because the metrics are more favorable to your catastrophism in the South than the North would you.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 1, 2015 18:04:44 GMT
AGW changes are known to be driving current extensions in Antarctic sea ice ( in some areas) but these gains will rapidly disappear as warming continues. To see the modelled response around Ross is deeply worrying ( as it protects the shelf behind) so any 'turn' in the fortunes of the ice around Antarctica is to be watched (IMHO).
The spectre of a return to positive natural forcings has me twitched? Let's see what the rest of the year brings us esp. Antarctic winter sea ice?
When we enter the period of 'sea ice collapse' it will be the current 'gain areas' ( Weddell/Ross) so will be an easy 'spot'?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 18:21:45 GMT
www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/tropical-island-fossil-clues-to-polar-ice-and-sea-level.htmlFrom the University of Florida The balmy islands of Seychelles couldn’t feel farther from Antarctica, but their fossil corals could reveal much about the fate of polar ice sheets. About 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was only slightly warmer, but sea levels rose high enough to submerge the locations of many of today’s coastal cities. Understanding what caused seas to rise then could shed light on how to protect those cities today.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 18:24:00 GMT
AGW changes are known to be driving current extensions in Antarctic sea ice ( in some areas) but these gains will rapidly disappear as warming continues. To see the modelled response around Ross is deeply worrying ( as it protects the shelf behind) so any 'turn' in the fortunes of the ice around Antarctica is to be watched (IMHO). The spectre of a return to positive natural forcings has me twitched? Let's see what the rest of the year brings us esp. Antarctic winter sea ice? When we enter the period of 'sea ice collapse' it will be the current 'gain areas' ( Weddell/Ross) so will be an easy 'spot'? Graywolf: All we have to do is look to the Eemian www.eoearth.org/view/article/169588/ to understand the behavior of the Antarctic and Arctic. To ignore the past is to remain in peril in the future.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 1, 2015 18:25:23 GMT
Nobody seriously disputes that the next 3 years will see a climate flip. The big issue is will the flip bring the worlds temperatures back the LIA recovery line or will we see an AGW delta.
I think the world will be pleased to see that CAGW is largely lost from the serious study focus. The crowd that enjoy for alternate ideological reasons the CAGW dialog will new let facts weaken their drive.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 18:32:30 GMT
Nobody seriously disputes that the next 3 years will see a climate flip. The big issue is will the flip bring the worlds temperatures back the LIA recovery line or will we see an AGW delta. I think the world will be pleased to see that CAGW is largely lost from the serious study focus. The crowd that enjoy for alternate ideological reasons the CAGW dialog will new let facts weaken their drive. nonentropic: That is pretty evident today. There are paleo records established, things that we KNOW happened during past interglacials. I, for the life of me, can't understand why AGW and GAGW advocates want to ignore the geo record and think that what is happening presently is something new and exciting. Offfftttta is all I can say. Amongst a few other words.....
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 1, 2015 19:05:16 GMT
Nobody seriously disputes that the next 3 years will see a climate flip. The big issue is will the flip bring the worlds temperatures back the LIA recovery line or will we see an AGW delta. I think the world will be pleased to see that CAGW is largely lost from the serious study focus. The crowd that enjoy for alternate ideological reasons the CAGW dialog will new let facts weaken their drive. nonentropic: That is pretty evident today. There are paleo records established, things that we KNOW happened during past interglacials. I, for the life of me, can't understand why AGW and GAGW advocates want to ignore the geo record and think that what is happening presently is something new and exciting. Offfftttta is all I can say. Amongst a few other words..... The past is irrelevant. it is not about the climate, it's about social change.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 1, 2015 19:17:00 GMT
I don't know how, but we have to get the politics part out of the science part. I know grants etc are required, and political pull establishes the largest share of grants.
But sheeesh..the blatant disregard for known knowledge is getting insulting. Some of us are NOT stupid, and we do read, and some of us actually find the published literature an EXCELLENT read.
One of the reasons I really enjoy this board. There are actual PUBLISHED papers posted to back most views. Who wudda thunk eh?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2015 21:58:05 GMT
I don't know how, but we have to get the politics part out of the science part. I know grants etc are required, and political pull establishes the largest share of grants. But sheeesh..the blatant disregard for known knowledge is getting insulting. Some of us are NOT stupid, and we do read, and some of us actually find the published literature an EXCELLENT read. One of the reasons I really enjoy this board. There are actual PUBLISHED papers posted to back most views. Who wudda thunk eh? The problem is science has evolved to half art and half mathematics. Lord Kelvin has many quotes lamenting what constitutes less than satisfactory science. However, even empirical science even has a degree of art in it. In financial matters statistical sampling is sometimes employed. Accountants have to be very careful. For a manufacturer of identical widgets it is relatively easy to employ statistical sampling. For a real estate developer its extremely difficult because every piece of real estate is unique and "representative" sampling is "assumed" in all statistical mathematics. IMO, science is a very important part of good regulation, but its very difficult to accept when you see gross negligence in the work and having it accepted by peer review pals with similar political agendas and then by the politicians. Unfortunately the best controls for this sort of thing is like the accounting industry where accountants assume heavy liabilities for their opinions, but that costs money too. The financial community has accepted it as a necessary protection for investment in publicly traded stocks. Its enabled through multiple avenues from licensing of accounting professionals, government oversight agencies, and regulation. The profession itself does a lot to establish professional standards for quality of work a huge effort by the professionals to create safe havens and professional definitions of what constitutes acceptable levels of effort in work products and principles determined to be consistent and rational. Science in academia is in comparison a completely disorganized rabble. There is some appearance of overview from groups like the National Academy of Sciences. But this is a group of people that only look over stuff when they are given a minimum of a $100,000 by the interested party, completely negating any true objectivity. The NAS is not a peer review organization in any definition of the term. Its just an elite group of scientists that gets some special government support and recognition. like a group of professional accountants who are also hired by interested parties, but the NAS lacks any neutral oversight whatsoever beyond themselves. Can you imagine going into litigation where the judge determines what he is going to look at by the size of the contributions of the litigants? Multiple levels of peer review are mandated for the accounting profession. What might work would be professional government licensing of peer reviewers. Publications and agencies pay peer reviewers to look over science work. There could be a professional organization of peer reviewers subject to some government oversight regarding the right to practice which would encourage peer reviewers to seek industry support for the purpose of establishing standards for peer review. Peer review would cost more but the result would be better science. As it is peer reviewers without any standards tend to look very narrowly at what they review. There is no overall encompassing review of a science paper. If you go over to Steve McIntyres sight you will see what quality peer review looks like. Steve does it mostly as a hobby but does solicit donations. So in a better regulated world of peer review the additional costs should not be too much more expensive. However, I am talking off the top of my head from an area I have some familiarity and applying it to the science profession. The details of how better controls should be implemented should be more organic from within the profession with a gradual move to more regulatory oversight, the exact steps to be determined. However, if standards were enacted in science that mandated some degree of empirical science, purely thought experiments like the greenhouse effect would not be considered settled science. Sure you could build a model on it but to be science you would need some postproduction validation. Challenging the greenhouse theory is very difficult because nobody has actually constructed a complete engineering model of it precluding falsification by experimentation. Further nobody has constructed a model of it that has passed any kind of validation test, in fact, these models are dismal failures almost across the board. Some altennative modelers like Spencer have been able to replicate recent history retrospectively, but that's not validation either and postproduction validation is nigh impossible because of the strength of non-greenhouse variation being so much stronger than what Spencer is finding. Indeed CO2 might have some effect but nobody has come close to proving it. Spencer has done a nice job of analyzing short term effects of clouds for example, but his work does not differentiate between emissions of molecules and reflection of light and does nothing for validating the longterm effects of additional CO2 sitting up in the atmosphere. We keep throwing a lot of money at this stuff due to the alarmist rhetoric amplified greatly by the very scientists who are pulling in a lot of personal benefits from it, without any peer review whatsoever. The public is not concerned but taxpayer money is being shoved down this blackhole like no tomorrow. Would spending a few more dollars on peer review help? While not perfect the perception from within the financial community is yes. Some times you have to spend a little money to save a lot. But I may be digressing to the overspending thread here so I will end my tirade at this point.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2015 22:01:29 GMT
Valid point Icefisher.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 8, 2015 13:30:54 GMT
Sea ice still falling back into the pack of other area plots and with no aid from the arctic we are falling well into negative global anoms. With the natural forcings swinging positive it might be an interesting re-freeze this year? A stormy southern ocean could lead to reductions in the area spread into Weddell/Ross
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 8, 2015 21:14:35 GMT
Graywolf The Antarctic Ice anomaly is bound to diminish at the height of the Southern Summer, as the ice shelf shrinks from the [record] almost 17 million sq kms to about 2 m sq kms. It is currently about 590,000 sq kms What is more important, is the huge cold anomaly around the Southern Ocean. weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gifWhen the refreeze starts in a fortnight or so, it will be really fast as the Antarctic refrigerator restarts. The part that I don't understand, is why, with that huge area of extremely cold water in the Antarctic Ocean, this is not showing up in the satellite measurements of global temperature. It has to be excessively warm somewhere else, not obvious from the amount of snow and ice being reported in the Northern Hemisphere. [This could be Oz, but I did not think we were that significant!]
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 10, 2015 14:16:03 GMT
www.universetoday.com/118639/what-could-explain-the-mysterious-ring-in-antarctica/Ever since its discovery was announced earlier this year, the 3 km-wide ring structure discovered on the of Antarctica has been a source of significant interest and speculation. Initially, the discovery was seen as little more than a happy accident that occurred during a survey of East Antarctica by a WEGAS (West-East Gondwana Amalgamation and its Separation) team from the Alfred Wegener Institute
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 10, 2015 17:43:24 GMT
Icenado? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 11, 2015 5:46:46 GMT
www.universetoday.com/118639/what-could-explain-the-mysterious-ring-in-antarctica/Ever since its discovery was announced earlier this year, the 3 km-wide ring structure discovered on the of Antarctica has been a source of significant interest and speculation. Initially, the discovery was seen as little more than a happy accident that occurred during a survey of East Antarctica by a WEGAS (West-East Gondwana Amalgamation and its Separation) team from the Alfred Wegener Institute The Gaia is trying to tell us something?
|
|