|
Post by graywolf on Sept 24, 2012 15:29:41 GMT
It's just like the global dimmed period I.F. Where ever you look see see agencies explaining why the changes to the strat impact the Trop below? I can see how it works from the explainations given but have not done the measuring myself? Some things you have to take on good faith or sit and do nowt?
As with the 'peterman crack' that went this year (flood outflow?) I've had my eye on a vast crack from Roosevelt island to the central Ross Embayment . WhenI I last spoke to Dr Grumbine they had just deployed seismographs along it's length and were awaiting the calve. Like the Peterman calve it will take the ice front well back from where it's 'natural variability ' would and would signal the basal melt of the grounded shelf? there must be an emmense amount of back pressure on the embayment ( it holds back a fair percentage of the drain glaciers from the E.A.I.S.) so any undercutting from the warm water incursion may well quickly bring about total failure? Remember this shelf is about the size of France and grounded on the sea bed (will impact sea levels) so should be watched if just for that? It also forms the Ross end of the channel through to Weddell (last open 125,000yrs ago with similar temps/CO2 levels?) so we may even see a fast movement on that too?
With the rest of the globe now 30yrs infront of the warming of the inner Antarctic continent the rapidity of it's 'catchup' once the winds/current are overcome, will lead to rapid changes there (remember the 'saddle and lobe' ice sheet melt paper from July?).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2012 16:27:21 GMT
It's just like the global dimmed period I.F. Where ever you look see see agencies explaining why the changes to the strat impact the Trop below? I can see how it works from the explainations given but have not done the measuring myself? Some things you have to take on good faith or sit and do nowt? As with the 'peterman crack' that went this year (flood outflow?) I've had my eye on a vast crack from Roosevelt island to the central Ross Embayment . WhenI I last spoke to Dr Grumbine they had just deployed seismographs along it's length and were awaiting the calve. Like the Peterman calve it will take the ice front well back from where it's 'natural variability ' would and would signal the basal melt of the grounded shelf? there must be an emmense amount of back pressure on the embayment ( it holds back a fair percentage of the drain glaciers from the E.A.I.S.) so any undercutting from the warm water incursion may well quickly bring about total failure? Remember this shelf is about the size of France and grounded on the sea bed (will impact sea levels) so should be watched if just for that? It also forms the Ross end of the channel through to Weddell (last open 125,000yrs ago with similar temps/CO2 levels?) so we may even see a fast movement on that too? With the rest of the globe now 30yrs infront of the warming of the inner Antarctic continent the rapidity of it's 'catchup' once the winds/current are overcome, will lead to rapid changes there (remember the 'saddle and lobe' ice sheet melt paper from July?). blah blah blah The Antarctic did exactly opposite what was predicted. The "consensus" was wrong. Why is it so hard for you Warmologists to acknowledge that?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Sept 24, 2012 17:24:02 GMT
I do like to see folk commit to posts Mags, mak,es it easier down the line don'tcha think?
I have a number of folk currently hat eating after some strong outbursts about 'thicker/older' Arctic ice keeping a strong pack this year (and, of course ,reaching 'average' back in March......shows how wrong some folk can be in their hopecasts eh?
So , which first then? Pine Island , Thwaites or a big calve from Ross (on my Roosevelt Island side) or are you confident enough to state 'None!'?
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 24, 2012 21:03:00 GMT
How can you expect the world to take you serious. There is a lot of uncertainty full stop, the north sort of says warming the south sort of says the opposite.
Should anyone feel comfortable no. Every Warmist I know revels in the prospect of a world wide collapse, every sceptic I take seriously is watching the data and searching for a signal that may show catastrophic warming but till now sees nothing out of the norm and certainly no reason to destroy the lives of the poor with silly industries that are economic suicide.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 25, 2012 0:30:33 GMT
I do like to see folk commit to posts Mags, mak,es it easier down the line don'tcha think? I have a number of folk currently hat eating after some strong outbursts about 'thicker/older' Arctic ice keeping a strong pack this year (and, of course ,reaching 'average' back in March......shows how wrong some folk can be in their hopecasts eh? So , which first then? Pine Island , Thwaites or a big calve from Ross (on my Roosevelt Island side) or are you confident enough to state 'None!'? I don't enter guesses for Arctic minimum because it doesn't mean much in the long term, only to AGW cultists. The so-called Arctic amplification is not a constant. One must believe the NAO and AMO are also a constant and will not return to their cyclical cold phase as the PDO has in the Western Arctic, which you haven't made a peep about. You know the "record" ice in the Bering Sea Mark Serreze called a fluke in 2010? You mean with all your gibberish you forgot about the "canary in the coal mine" that is called Alaska, the region which AGW promoters told us would continue warming to infinitum? Graywolf, are the NAO and AMO real or just unknown mythical cycles like Tstat refers to them as?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 26, 2012 2:37:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 30, 2012 0:10:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 30, 2012 2:27:31 GMT
Jumping into the discussion, just a few comments.
First, the increase in maximum Antarctic Sea Extent is small in contrast with the observed decrease in minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Also, keep in mind that the physics in the southern hemisphere is quite different than the physics in the north.
Then, various alternative lines of evidence show warming/melting in Antarctica.
In addition, it does not appear that the Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent is changing; just the Maximum Extent.
The interesting question is 'what physical processes are producing this effect?'
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 30, 2012 3:35:43 GMT
The effects of ocean warming on salinity and ice formation are examples of processes affecting the Antarctic Sea Ice maximum, "Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions" psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdfAgain, regarding the sea ice maximum in the Antarctic, the interesting question is 'what physical processes are producing this effect?'
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 30, 2012 14:13:50 GMT
The main thing to take home in all of the discussions is to ignore short term flucuations.
Climate is not annual, that is weather.
Ice, as a whole, has been in a downward trend since the end of the Little Ice Age. We have not approached the ice levels of the last warm period, the Medevial Warm Period.
What we may be observing is the apex of our current warming cycle. In another 50 years, we will know.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2012 17:14:23 GMT
The main thing to take home in all of the discussions is to ignore short term flucuations. Climate is not annual, that is weather. Ice, as a whole, has been in a downward trend since the end of the Little Ice Age. We have not approached the ice levels of the last warm period, the Medevial Warm Period. What we may be observing is the apex of our current warming cycle. In another 50 years, we will know. I think the main thing to take home is despite Tstat's attempt at downplaying, the Antarctic was predicted 20+ years ago and subsequent IPCC reports to WARM FASTER and MELT MORE than the Arctic. Thermostat, you don't get to pick and choose which papers fit the current observations after the fact. That is using logical fallacy to it's fullest.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2012 17:28:34 GMT
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-paper-shows-antarctic-temperatures.htmlA paper published today in Climate of the Past shows no increase in temperature of the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica over the 536 year period from 1470-2006. The paper, based upon a temperature proxy from stable isotopes of deuterium [δD] in ice cores, finds that the Little Ice Age prior to 1850 was about 1.6C cooler than the last 150 years. Smoothed proxy temperatures at the beginning of the ice core record in 1470 indicate slightly higher temperatures than at the end of the record in 2006. Climate alarmists claim the poles are the "canaries in the coal mine" and warm the fastest, however, this data shows Antarctica, home of 90% of the world's ice, has not warmed over the past 500+ years.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 30, 2012 18:25:20 GMT
So Thermostat you agree the models have failed.
The arguments that in spite of increase in ice it ignores that some things have warmed /decreased in the Antarctic. Heads I win tails you loose arguments are very week. The case for CAGW is weakened but not destroyed by ice growth in the Antarctic as is the reverse case in the Arctic. But unless there is a very strong reasoned arguement for the very different responses at the ends of the globe, the arguement for a global phanomina
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2012 19:08:29 GMT
So Thermostat you agree the models have failed. The arguments that in spite of increase in ice it ignores that some things have warmed /decreased in the Antarctic. Heads I win tails you loose arguments are very week. The case for CAGW is weakened but not destroyed by ice growth in the Antarctic as is the reverse case in the Arctic. But unless there is a very strong reasoned arguement for the very different responses at the ends of the globe, the arguement for a global phanomina What it says is "polar amplification" based on AGW is bunkum. The missing tropical tropospheric hot spot should been enough, but the AGW promoters simply ignore the failures and move on. Warming oceans via CO2 is not happening. In short the "amplified greenhouse effect" is junk science.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2012 21:52:56 GMT
What we may be observing is the apex of our current warming cycle. In another 50 years, we will know.
"We will know" might be a little bit strong.
The ice core record suggests that it takes a lot longer to cool than warm (feedbacks?)
Maybe thats the difference between processes warming surface water from sunlight versus supercooling surface water in the extended dark and having it sink below the halocline to only later reemerge at the surface.
Since warming has only averaged .005degC/year and there is the potential of 2degC slop in the temperature record it could take 400 years to root out all the bias.
And of course it could operate like the tides and be flat for 1 or 200 hundred years before significant cooling (first diminishing warming then increasing cooling) is occurring.
And if it does take 4 times or more longer to cool than warm we might be looking at all of minus .001degC "average cooling" over the next 1500 years with the least amount of it upfront.
At any rate I would wager that Hansen goes to his grave busily redrawing disasterous warming curves while his nurses fret and clasp hands over the anxiety he exudes.
|
|