|
Post by magellan on Sept 16, 2009 12:12:02 GMT
The ice could hover around the baseline period for the next 30 years and we'd still be hearing about the "long term trend". Nobody knows what the "normal" extent/volume/area should be, so all this dissecting of trends using them as a predictive tool is a bit over the top.
Basically what I do now is look at what the alarmists predict, assume the exact opposite, divide by two and it will probably be about right.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 16, 2009 12:29:05 GMT
The ice could hover around the baseline period for the next 30 years and we'd still be hearing about the "long term trend". Nobody knows what the "normal" extent/volume/area should be, so all this dissecting of trends using them as a predictive tool is a bit over the top. Basically what I do now is look at what the alarmists predict, assume the exact opposite, divide by two and it will probably be about right. Good strategy. The hype machine may milk the Arctic ice for the foreseeable future, sort of like what they do with their polar bear scam.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 16, 2009 15:17:12 GMT
The ice could hover around the baseline period for the next 30 years and we'd still be hearing about the "long term trend". Nobody knows what the "normal" extent/volume/area should be, so all this dissecting of trends using them as a predictive tool is a bit over the top. Basically what I do now is look at what the alarmists predict, assume the exact opposite, divide by two and it will probably be about right. No ice is in the range of normal if your frame of reference is the current interglacial. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum (note they say "optimum") which occurred between 5 and 9 thousand years ago, the arctic was about 4 degrees warmer than today and ice free enough to form beaches on the north side of Greenland from wave action.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 16, 2009 16:00:12 GMT
Crossing the NE Passage is nothing new. The new part is the MSM saying it is new and the warmist trumpeting it as proof. Lot's more evidence in this paper. "The first offer to open the Northern Sea Route to international shipping was made early in 1967, when it was argued that it could save thirteen days between Hamburg and Yokohama as opposed to the conventional link via Suez. Soviet cargo carriers made three demonstration voyages from north European ports and Japan." www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol03/tnm_3_2_1-17.pdf
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 16, 2009 16:35:39 GMT
Oh my! That estimate of nearly 11000 sq km gain last night turned into 24,531 today in the final gain for Sept 15th. The turn is now historical reality. Why do they bother with such grossly in error preliminary estimates ?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 16, 2009 17:05:58 GMT
The ice could hover around the baseline period for the next 30 years and we'd still be hearing about the "long term trend". Nobody knows what the "normal" extent/volume/area should be, so all this dissecting of trends using them as a predictive tool is a bit over the top. Basically what I do now is look at what the alarmists predict, assume the exact opposite, divide by two and it will probably be about right. No ice is in the range of normal if your frame of reference is the current interglacial. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum (note they say "optimum") which occurred between 5 and 9 thousand years ago, the arctic was about 4 degrees warmer than today and ice free enough to form beaches on the north side of Greenland from wave action. That is correct. Therefore, using the "long term trend" argument, the globe is in a cooling trend, is it not? Air temps in the Arctic are a byproduct not a cause, and it is at the equator (the oceans) where global warming/cooling begins with the poles being the last place to manifest the warming/cooling via ocean heat, or in the case of 2007, ocean currents and wind patterns largely. Oceans (water) warm the continents, not GHG, and the sun warms the oceans, not GHG to any measurable level. It takes many years for the ocean warmth to work its way up to the Arctic, and is now waning. That OHC stopped increasing should be cause for questioning AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels), however as with everything else climate related, some Warmologists, the True Believers, say OHC is an "average", like temperature, without realizing how silly that notion is. Still others say there is heat "in the pipeline", again nonsense. Despite reminding them that ENSO is not driven by AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels), as this current El Nino manifests itself, warmologists will claim it is a sure sign of consistency with AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) and the long awaited return to IPCC monotonic warming, but we all know what happens after an El Nino I think it is possible the Arctic at some point may be ice free as it was in times past, but in the meantime there will be long cyclical cooling patterns just as there always was, not random blips of yearly variability that modelers program into their GCM. BTW, references available upon request.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 16, 2009 20:17:20 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 16, 2009 20:21:41 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC Sage wisdom from someone whose own mouth is quite full at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 16, 2009 21:16:25 GMT
It is quite clear, from various navigation charts, that the actual extent is still in decline in many places. All that is happening now is that the radar signal is now "seeing" ice that it didn't before. Ice is changing colour, and melt pools are freezing up
However, this has always been happening, so the data is comparable from year to year (whatever it measures). It just ISNT measuring true Ice Extent. (Its going to be within +/- 25% - nearly always negative error, as the algorithms are tuned to reject ice that looks like something else)
The Jaxa plot may rise sharply, or it may even dip to a lower "extent" in the next few weeks. It all depends on the Ice radar reflection, which is always changing along with seasonal changes to the ice surface.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 16, 2009 22:04:07 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC In that case SoCold make a testable prediction that can be validated at a particular time. Such as heat content will be at least x in 20##. After all you have been saying OHC has not been going down - so it should be simple for you.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 16, 2009 23:06:04 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC There is an explanation for everything, so I want to know why after ARGO was online that OHC stopped increasing. Is it because there is wider spatial coverage, more accurate and quite possibly that previous measurements were spurious? Faulty equipment? Why isn't it the onus on those that claimed AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) was responsible for OHC increases from 1993-2003, then referred to as the smoking gun , to give an explanation for the stalling of the oceans warming? Things don't just happen.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 16, 2009 23:39:01 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC In that case SoCold make a testable prediction that can be validated at a particular time. Such as heat content will be at least x in 20##. After all you have been saying OHC has not been going down - so it should be simple for you. Hansen's model predicts an increase of 10^23 J / yr in OHC, every year, so the prediction should be straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 17, 2009 0:55:50 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC Real scientific there Socold! Socold enters room and throws his staff on the ground and proclaims its going to turn into a serpent and consume the serpents of the unrepentent skeptics.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 17, 2009 1:21:16 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC Have you eaten your words over storms, temps, ice, drought, etc.? Those meals are not getting warmer, or fresher. Yet they keep getting larger.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 17, 2009 1:26:08 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC Real scientific there Socold! Socold enters room and throws his staff on the ground and proclaims its going to turn into a serpent and consume the serpents of the unrepentent skeptics. The believers have bought into the belief. As the Earth turns cool they will fight it tooth and nail. There is no interest about science, they will argue that the natural cooling cycle that always happens is temporary.
|
|