|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 21:56:30 GMT
Nothing of the sort. Look at the OHC record - see the variation. It isn't a smooth line which is what your argment assumes. Which record? There are several. There are very few things in measurement that are "smooth". Variation is a normal function in nature, unless you assume room temperature, then that's about as smooth a line you can get. You still cannot get around the fact that OHC is not increasing since 2003. What exactly you are arguing is puzzling. Why do you think OHC not increasing since 2003 is not just part of the variation you admit exists? Okay I will bite. Provide evidence for the first claim and then evidence for a "shift". This is ridiculous. Arctic summer sea ice extent shows a strong decline, with the last two years being far below trend. Even at trend the current rate of decline will see sea ice minimum extent hit zero some time this century.  It will take substantial recovery over many years to reverse such a trend and bring arctic ice consistantly above the trend line. The past two years have in fact compounded the decline - made the declining slope steeper, not at all reversed it.  www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/The paper explicitly blames the thin state of arctic ice in recent years compared to decades ago for it's succeptibility to weather extremes. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 22:00:37 GMT
In the Levitus data that socold has shown, the story seems to be that most of the time, the oceans are not warming! It sort of jumps up every few years and then levels out for a few years. The problem is it rarely jumps down. It may be due to instrumentation error or this might be variation that actually exists in climate. We've already seen many significant OHC record revisions in recent years and the records do disagree between each other quite a bit. This and the issue with tropical tropospheric temperature trends remind me very much of the cambrian explosion problem in evolution. Ie there's a problem but there is a possible explaination, although not provable. In both cases skeptics are jumping the gun in claiming falsification of the theory. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 23:00:58 GMT
This and the issue with tropical tropospheric temperature trends remind me very much of the cambrian explosion problem in evolution. Ie there's a problem but there is a possible explaination, although not provable. In both cases skeptics are jumping the gun in claiming falsification of the theory. You misunderstand what has been falsified Socold. What has been falsified is the idea that natural variation cannot be the explanation of the changes in climate we have seen. Its quite clear that natural variation has not been accurately modeled, and until one does that correctly you are just guessing about what impact CO2 can have. Seems climate scientists are acting like a lot of wet-behind-the-ears natural scientists. Nature is humbling. Its all too common that the too young too stupid sorts assume you can model natural systems with a few calculations. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 23:12:29 GMT
This is ridiculous. Arctic summer sea ice extent shows a strong decline, with the last two years being far below trend. Even at trend the current rate of decline will see sea ice minimum extent hit zero some time this century. It will take substantial recovery over many years to reverse such a trend and bring arctic ice consistantly above the trend line. The past two years have in fact compounded the decline - made the declining slope steeper, not at all reversed it. AGW alarmists are like thoroughbreds beating down the track with blinders, the bit in their teeth, and a whip on their rear. I look at that chart and have to wonder if the oceanic current decadal patterns have anything to do with it. Not much ice melts from above. Witness the ice breaking up in the arctic when air temps are still below freezing. Mostly the ice is melting at a relatively constant rate and how much ice there is in the summer is contingent upon how much froze during the winter and how warm the currents are taking water into the arctic region. At best a very dicey indicator of AGW. So knowing that why not do the same analysis on global sea ice? Something peculiar there Socold? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 0:50:33 GMT
This and the issue with tropical tropospheric temperature trends remind me very much of the cambrian explosion problem in evolution. Ie there's a problem but there is a possible explaination, although not provable. In both cases skeptics are jumping the gun in claiming falsification of the theory. You misunderstand what has been falsified Socold. What has been falsified is the idea that natural variation cannot be the explanation of the changes in climate we have seen. Its quite clear that natural variation has not been accurately modeled, and until one does that correctly you are just guessing about what impact CO2 can have. You are basing this on the fact temperatures have been flat for 7 years. But models do show periods of 7 years without temperature rise (even 10 years) So how does your argument make any sense? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 0:55:35 GMT
AGW alarmists are like thoroughbreds beating down the track with blinders, the bit in their teeth, and a whip on their rear. I look at that chart and have to wonder if the oceanic current decadal patterns have anything to do with it. Well you don't disagree that the chart doesn't support a reversal in the declining trend which was the entire point I posted it. Because the most significant qualative change in the cryosphere on the horizon is an arctic without summer sea ice. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 19, 2009 2:33:31 GMT
Why do you think OHC not increasing since 2003 is not just part of the variation you admit exists? Okay I will bite. Provide evidence for the first claim and then evidence for a "shift". This is ridiculous. Arctic summer sea ice extent shows a strong decline, with the last two years being far below trend. Even at trend the current rate of decline will see sea ice minimum extent hit zero some time this century. It will take substantial recovery over many years to reverse such a trend and bring arctic ice consistantly above the trend line. The past two years have in fact compounded the decline - made the declining slope steeper, not at all reversed it. The paper explicitly blames the thin state of arctic ice in recent years compared to decades ago for it's succeptibility to weather extremes. Why do you think OHC not increasing since 2003 is not just part of the variation you admit exists? If you can't understand the simplicity of the matter as explained by Pielke, there's no hope you ever will. Okay I will bite. Provide evidence for the first claim and then evidence for a "shift" Those who have been following the GW matter for several years know exactly what I'm referring to. This is ridiculous. Arctic summer sea ice extent shows a strong decline, with the last two years being far below trend. Even at trend the current rate of decline will see sea ice minimum extent hit zero some time this century. Yes, it has been known for at least 5 years the Arctic does tend to melt more in the summer than in winter. Did you know the email open rate has been dropping the last 5 years? At the current rate, by around the year 2029, nobody will be opening their email!  Trend watching is fun, but many have lost their fortunes relying on them. It will take substantial recovery over many years to reverse such a trend and bring arctic ice consistantly above the trend line. The past two years have in fact compounded the decline - made the declining slope steeper, not at all reversed it. There is not one shred of evidence to support the 2007 Arctic melt was a result of CO2 AGW, yet who can forget the news headlines and "scientists say" articles? www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=zPu&newwindow=1&q=2007+arctic+ice+melt+global+warming&btnG=SearchDo you study history? Go back to pre-1950 and you'll find the same apocalyptic predictions as we see today about Arctic melting. The same for Greenland. The paper explicitly blames the thin state of arctic ice in recent years compared to decades ago for it's succeptibility to weather extremes.
Still no empirical evidence to support the CO2 AGW melt of the Arctic? You failed to mention the numbers.....what I like to see: The clearer skies led to downwelling shortwave (longwave) radiative fluxes with increases of +32 Wm-2 (- 4 Wm-2) from 2006 to 2007.
The question still nags......where is the evidence to support CO2 AGW was a measurable fraction of the 2007 Arctic melt? |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 19, 2009 2:56:53 GMT
Hi Socold. Do you concede that 2007 saw the historic maximum sea ice for the Southern Hemisphere? Would you care to explain how co2 melted the ice in the Arctic but let Antarctica's ice keep growing? Would you care to explain the higher temperatures during the Holocene Optimum, since when we have been cooling, with respect to co2? Would you care to explain the Eemian Interglacial's higher temperatures and higher sea levels (4 to 6 meters higher than today) in terms of co2?  |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 19, 2009 3:32:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 19, 2009 6:02:57 GMT
So knowing that why not do the same analysis on global sea ice? Something peculiar there Socold? Because the most significant qualative change in the cryosphere on the horizon is an arctic without summer sea ice. Marketing huh? So your global model doesn't pan out huh? So you are going to try to market a regional one and label it as a global indicator? You are no better than one of those snake oil sellers promising miraculous cures for a dollar but have nothing but total hogwash. The only excuse for selling a regional marker is when the global marker is not obtainable or the regional marker is a well known driver/indicator of the global situation. And if its known the regional marker misrepresents the global marker its criminal. You know they put securities brokers in jail for what you are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by ron on May 19, 2009 14:46:37 GMT
Perhaps the answer is "When a value falls outside 2 standard deviations?"
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 18:28:29 GMT
Why do you think OHC not increasing since 2003 is not just part of the variation you admit exists? If you can't understand the simplicity of the matter as explained by Pielke, there's no hope you ever will. You already admitted there is noise in the data, so what makes you think the period 2003-2009 is not part of this noise? Why is it any different than the period 1996-2001 that showed no rise in OHC for example? If you expect OHC should rise year after year why didn't it do so in 1996-2001? But noone is stupid enough to claim that email opening trends have recently reversed. There is plenty of evidence. Those who have been following the GW matter for several years know exactly what I'm referring to. The physics show that co2 rise has had a warming effect on the polar region. If you don't think understand there's a relationship between temperature and ice in the arctic there's no hope you ever will. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 18:32:40 GMT
Because the most significant qualative change in the cryosphere on the horizon is an arctic without summer sea ice. Marketing huh? So your global model doesn't pan out huh? So you are going to try to market a regional one and label it as a global indicator? You are no better than one of those snake oil sellers promising miraculous cures for a dollar but have nothing but total hogwash. The only excuse for selling a regional marker is when the global marker is not obtainable or the regional marker is a well known driver/indicator of the global situation. And if its known the regional marker misrepresents the global marker its criminal. You know they put securities brokers in jail for what you are doing. Antarctic sea ice has no significant trend. Arctic sea ice has a significant negative trend. With the risk of hitting zero sea ice in summer and all the impacts on weather that will have. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 18:43:50 GMT
Hi Socold. Do you concede that 2007 saw the historic maximum sea ice for the Southern Hemisphere? Yes obviously There are a variety of possibilities, first of all warming in the southern hemisphere is dampened by the larger extent of ocean. Second there is the ozone hole. Third the weather in antarctic is far more extreme and variable. Due to scale reasons it's unclear if it was warmer back then compared to recent decades: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pngUnlike back then we now have cities and other infrastructure near sea level. And the models show that we could surpass the max temerature in the Eemian this century. The Eemain temperatures were only about 1-2C greater than present. So this demonstrates clearly that small changes in global temperature can have big effects. Notice that the Eemian climate is also direct evidence that the greenland and antarctic ice shelves will melt if subjected to such heightened global temperature and the extent of that the subsequent sea level rise will be significant. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 19, 2009 18:43:52 GMT
Hi Socold.
You appear to have ignored or missed my post regarding climatic variability. Here it is again, just in case:
Do you concede that 2007 saw the historic maximum sea ice for the Southern Hemisphere?
Would you care to explain how co2 melted the ice in the Arctic but let Antarctica's ice keep growing?
Would you care to explain the higher temperatures during the Holocene Optimum, since when we have been cooling, with respect to co2?
Would you care to explain the Eemian Interglacial's higher temperatures and higher sea levels (4 to 6 meters higher than today) in terms of co2?
|
|
