|
Post by socold on Aug 17, 2009 0:16:17 GMT
I was talking about the trend, not year to year variation. I see so when you said: "and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice." What you meant was there will be no upturn in sea ice _trend_? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Alice through the Looking Glass - Lewis CarrolSoCold I think perhaps we should call you Humpty Dumpty I expect that your next input will be that you expect at least 30 years before you will accept things as a 'trend' anything to avoid validation. The art of the unfalisifiable hypothesis is alive and well You left out context from the previous post. Here's the two posts from me end on end, the one you quoted is in bold. Socold: "I am not expecting a continued downward trend to zero just because of the last 30 years of data. I am expecting a continued downward trend to zero because I expect the arctic will continue warming this century. I expect temperature to continue rising and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past."
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 17, 2009 0:22:45 GMT
I see so when you said: "and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice." What you meant was there will be no upturn in sea ice _trend_? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Alice through the Looking Glass - Lewis CarrolSoCold I think perhaps we should call you Humpty Dumpty I expect that your next input will be that you expect at least 30 years before you will accept things as a 'trend' anything to avoid validation. The art of the unfalisifiable hypothesis is alive and well You left out context from the previous post. Here's the two posts from me end on end, the one you quoted is in bold. Socold: "I am not expecting a continued downward trend to zero just because of the last 30 years of data. I am expecting a continued downward trend to zero because I expect the arctic will continue warming this century. I expect temperature to continue rising and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past." Yes I know that's why I restated it as a validation test. However, Humpty Dumpty will just say that when he said: " there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past"what he _meant_ no upturn in sea ice _trend_ AGW remains an unfalisifiable hypothesis and as such is NOT a valid hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 17, 2009 0:27:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 17, 2009 3:13:19 GMT
Socold: "I am not expecting a continued downward trend to zero just because of the last 30 years of data. I am expecting a continued downward trend to zero because I expect the arctic will continue warming this century. I expect temperature to continue rising and therefore there will be no upturn in sea ice. This is regardless of whether arctic ice extent cycled up and down in the past." So I'm looking through some Arctic temperature data, and can't really find anything that indicates the above statement as anything but conjecture based on.......absolutely nothing. Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillationwww.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038777.shtmlUnderstanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale. I don't have the full article yet, but gee, no mention of GHG in abstract. Hmm, odd isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 17, 2009 3:22:50 GMT
Those durn cycles just keep popping up over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 17, 2009 3:32:25 GMT
So I'm looking through some Arctic temperature data, and can't really find anything that indicates the above statement as anything but conjecture based on.......absolutely nothing. It's based on observational data and physics. Both of which show that in a warming world the arctic warms (in fact warms faster). Therefore when I say I expect the globe to continue warming and therefore sea ice to continue declining, I am stating something which is widely accepted in the scientific community. I see no mention of any drivers in the abstract so it's not odd that any particular one is not mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 17, 2009 4:05:35 GMT
It's based on observational data and physics. Both of which show that in a warming world the arctic warms (in fact warms faster). Therefore when I say I expect the globe to continue warming and therefore sea ice to continue declining, I am stating something which is widely accepted in the scientific community. You have to admit though that it is tantalizing that the 1910-1940 arctic warming proceeded at a faster pace than the 1970-2008 arctic warming
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Aug 18, 2009 7:53:04 GMT
Socold,
You indicate the scientific consensus is for the arctic to warm even more than the rest of the earth and, as a result, the arctic sea ice trend will continue to decline. Those seem like pretty fundamental conclusions you have made. Assume the 09 sea ice minimum is greater than 08 and that 10 and 11 are greater than 09. What would your response be? At some point will you begin to question whether the consensus has the ability to make accurate projections with a limited number of well understood inputs?
Will you show any skepticism toward the "consensus" if a significant four year recovery were to occur?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 19, 2009 22:39:23 GMT
The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
“An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. “The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.
from wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/#more-10022Back to Pielke Sr's question about OHC records falsifying Hansen's predictions.
|
|