|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2009 19:04:13 GMT
And no, 2008 was not predicted to have an ice free arctic by anyone. So you got that wrong as well. Another example of reading/hearing what you want to read/hear?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 6, 2009 2:00:41 GMT
Acceleration of melt? Wasn't 2008 supposed to produce an "ice free arctic for the first time in human history"? I posted several examples recently. As usual you fail to read what I say: "late acceleration in the melt". Last July I thought that the June and July sea ice predictions appeared to be overstating the melting, and said so here. Come August, lots of ice melted significantly reducing the anomaly, and the average of the June and July predictions was about right. I believe Woodstove agreed with me about the August acceleration. Perhaps you should take it up with him. And no, 2008 was not predicted to have an ice free arctic by anyone. So you got that wrong as well. Another example of reading/hearing what you want to read/hear? I have no idea why your headline list is relevant, so I'll cut it. Perhaps start a separate thread and make your point there. If you think this is significant, you don't understand the thread. Please steve, we who follow things closely read the headlines and "scientists say" malarkey. 2007 was the last hoorah for Arctic doomsdayers, and they made no waste in attempting to link that year to "climate change" as a result of CO2 AGW. It was bunk then and it is now. www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=64I&newwindow=1&q=2008+ice+free+arctic&aq=f&oq=&aqi=The repository for climate alarmism, NewScientist quoting Mark Serreze, now director of NSIDC: www.newscientist.com/article/dn13779-north-pole-could-be-ice-free-in-2008.htmlThe intent is to instill fear into the public and influence policymakers based on their SWAG. If it happened you'd be here touting all the predictions you now say weren't made. Are you now going to say there were no scientists claiming the 2007 Arctic ice conditions were a direct result of "climate change" (as defined by warmologists)?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 6, 2009 13:35:09 GMT
As usual you fail to read what I say: "late acceleration in the melt". Last July I thought that the June and July sea ice predictions appeared to be overstating the melting, and said so here. Come August, lots of ice melted significantly reducing the anomaly, and the average of the June and July predictions was about right. I believe Woodstove agreed with me about the August acceleration. Perhaps you should take it up with him. And no, 2008 was not predicted to have an ice free arctic by anyone. So you got that wrong as well. Another example of reading/hearing what you want to read/hear? I have no idea why your headline list is relevant, so I'll cut it. Perhaps start a separate thread and make your point there. If you think this is significant, you don't understand the thread. Please steve, we who follow things closely read the headlines and "scientists say" malarkey. The evidence is that you don't follow things closely. You follow things and then misinterpret them. I don't know whether your misinterpretation is deliberate or not. There have been plenty of other reports that have discussed the misinterpretation you have made - did you follow them closely too? If I should choose to point out your misinterpretation will you accept that you have misunderstood or will you claim that the scientists went out of their way to mislead you, and that you were fooled by them into making the above claim about arctic sea ice?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 6, 2009 15:43:26 GMT
Isn't it interesting there is indisputable evidence presented for near surface station networks being unreliable for a number of reasons, yet in the Arctic where there are no siting/UHI/LCC other than the thermometers being buried in snow, warmologists can't help themselves and cry foul? It is possible the sensors are out of calibration, but I'd be willing to bet they are better maintained than most. I'm not crying foul. Till you understand what I am saying, please hold back on your emotive prose. I'm pointing out that Joe D'Aleo doesn't know the difference between a reanalysis and an observation. Most of the region north of 80N is ocean, so I doubt there are many sensors buried in the snow or otherwise. Check a map for goodness sake! Yes, by all means steve, check a map. That white stuff you see at the North Pole is snow! ScienceDaily has not yet reported Santa Claus evacuated. Where is "north of 80N"? Note the instrumentation bobbing in the water?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 6, 2009 15:52:15 GMT
If I should choose to point out your misinterpretation will you accept that you have misunderstood or will you claim that the scientists went out of their way to mislead you, and that you were fooled by them into making the above claim about arctic sea ice? We understand that Steve. Things are carefully worded to mislead, without being totally committed or outright wrong. There is always a pullback qualifier to provide cover against the careful reader. . . .but in the financial world this is a no no. You have to be consistently clear. What is abundantly clear is the deception. And that goes to the entire theory. The theory was build on recent warming, mostly on two decades. That was clear thats where they found all the constants for their models that leads to the quantities in their estimates. An auditor would say OK thats great in the absense of other information. If you have to report something you use a tactic such as that in the financial world. You look at recent history and pull that as a constant. But where the fraud comes in is that when you do that in the financial world you are supposed to move that window down the road each year. . . .whether you like the results or not. And that sets aside for the moment if an auditor is going to let you us a window of a particular length or not as the auditor will also audit the window in view of its historic values, like do you have an explanation for the 1910-1940 warming that is consistent with the theory you are using. If you don't the auditor will say you need to extend your window to encompass that. An auditor will tell management that does not do that to adjust their books or either suffer an adverse opinion or a possible withdrawal from the engagement depending upon how important those assumptions are to the accuracy of the financial statements. It embodies the idea of a trend being OK to work with rather than an absolute temperature. But once you commit to a trend you can not change its length or it method of calculation without going through a complete disclosure in the financial statements of exactly how you are changing your rules for accounting and even going so far as restating previous year statements to correct them for the new methodology. What we have in the scientific modeling community is a slimy bed of urchins corresponding to the very worst of people thrown in jail for accounting scandals on Wall Street. They violate every rule of consistency that you live or die behind in the financial world. They file reports without updating data to the very most recent. (SEC requires it be at a minimum quarterly if prepare new information). This is why annual financial statements are due no later than March 31. They invent new smoothing formulas to disguise changing trends. This is a violation of consistent accounting practices requirement of GAAP. They don't update failed formulas for recent trend changes calling them instead noise. This is an omission of pertinent facts and violates the completeness requirement of GAAP. And that is on top of a chosen window for the constants in their model that leave anomalies in the MWP and 1910-1940 unexplained and unaccounted for. Global changing temperatures have been around for a long time and you are not allowed to just cherry pick a 10 to 20 year window to build your model on. . . .at least in a field with any kind of standards worth relying upon anyway thats the case. Its exactly the situation the financial world was in prior to the requirements for independent audits and a government agency that specified rules for accounting. It was a hotbed of con artists, crooks, and ponzi schemes. Thats the state of climate science today. No question about it. I have seen far too much of this nonsense and heard too many excuses over the years to not instantly recognize it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 6, 2009 17:01:42 GMT
If I should choose to point out your misinterpretation will you accept that you have misunderstood or will you claim that the scientists went out of their way to mislead you, and that you were fooled by them into making the above claim about arctic sea ice? We understand that Steve. Things are carefully worded to mislead, without being totally committed or outright wrong. There is always a pullback qualifier to provide cover against the careful reader. But I know that magellan, and you, are careful readers. So if you are incorrectly repeating what a scientist said, despite wide discussion in the blogosphere about the misinterpretation, then I would question whether you are here for an intelligent discussion or here for propaganda purposes. I'll bypass most of your tirade except for: That is a complete and utter load of nonsense. The theory was developed in the 19th century. Worked on for decades leading to the set up of the CO2 monitoring stations in the 1950's onwards. The first climate models were developed in the 1960's and early 70's and were reporting possibilities of cooling due to aerosols and/or warming due to CO2 at a time when people thought the climate was cooling. Even if you look at 1988, when Hansen made his famous presentation (which wasn't a presentation that came out of the blue), there wasn't that much evidence of current warming.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 6, 2009 17:09:10 GMT
Magellan,
I'll bet 50p that they did not have much remote sensing buoy coverage of the Arctic in the 1950s and 60s.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 6, 2009 17:32:18 GMT
Steve: You will have define remote a bit closer as there were thermometers in the Arcitic in the 50-60's. One just had to walk or dogsled to them to read them.
I think you need to ammend that to transmitting remote sensors.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jul 6, 2009 19:13:19 GMT
Steve please exclude all those thermometers, affected by UHI / poor siting. I believe we would see something like this:
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jul 6, 2009 21:07:00 GMT
Thank-you for posting the UAH readings. I find the apparent huge discrepancy between UAH and the Met Office readings to be disturbing (at least). UAH would imply to me that there clearly is no evidence of AGW (at all). The 80s El Chichon and the 90s Pinatubo eruption is more than enough (plus normal variability) to account for any residual slope in the graph. However, even if the worst interpretation of this graph is applied (eg. ~0.3 deg. C over 30 years), that is a truly puny change in temperature. It is so small that anyone who is claiming catastrophic effects and "tipping points" had better be prepared to be labeled as a fear monger. (sells more newspapers).
What I don't understand is why the climate is so stable over such a long period? Is it just the thermal mass of the oceans (HUGE), or is the negative feedbacks of thunder storms? Intesting!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 7, 2009 0:13:47 GMT
There is no huge discrepancy and tenths of a degree aren't small changes. It only takes a few degrees cooling to go into a glacial period. It only takes a few degrees warming to raise sea level hundreds of feet.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 7, 2009 0:14:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2009 0:20:40 GMT
[/img] How does one insert an image?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2009 0:22:34 GMT
Wow....thank you socold. I see we were warmer in the 1870's than we are today. I found the woodsite very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2009 0:23:37 GMT
In fact....looks like the late 1870's the anomoly was around .38 and we are at what......0.001 last month?
|
|