|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 19:39:11 GMT
Magellan, is there anything from you that would not be either cherry-picked and/or from a denialist blog?
You read nothing else, I assume? Brings you some comfort, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 19:41:23 GMT
this space intentionally blank, and reserved for a paying customer.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 25, 2013 19:46:33 GMT
Magellan, is there anything from you that would not be either cherry-picked and/or from a denialist blog? You read nothing else, I assume? Brings you some comfort, I suppose. Global temperature is cherry picking but putting a magnifying glass on Siberia is not? 15 years no warming; check 23 years no statistically significant warming; check. Global ice normal; check. No tropospheric hot spot (the holy grail of AGW); check. Are you saying the July global anomaly of -.13 is incorrect? Climate models are only off by 400%, but that's probably spot on in your book. Where's that missing hot spot hiding again? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 25, 2013 21:08:36 GMT
Yes that is correct! Looking for trends is what DMI is useful for as I told Numno. That is what is meant by DMI when they say you cannot use the figure as a mean temperature of the arctic. So if you wanted to say calculate how many joules of heat the arctic is gaining or losing you cannot do it with the temperature provided. You would have to go to the grids, weight them and build a model to do that. But its also incorrect to say that the temperature provided is not a real temperature. Its roughly representative of the average temperature of 85 degrees north. However, like all the gridded temperature systems that number would likely have some substantial error in it due to such things as extrapolating across coastlines and all sorts of geological features like mountain ranges, ice lines, ice sheet lines, and population centers. All the global temperature records do that. In the arctic you are extrapolating across ice lines, ice sheet lines, coastlines and some mountain ranges, but not really any population centers. Lines on a map that represent the earth can be considered real because they represent real points on Earth. So we can consider real grids and then we can consider something that seems totally different called model grids. What are model grids? I have not got the slightest clue what that means. All i know is that the modellers have told me this years temperature graph does not represent real temperatures but rather relative differences in relationship to other years |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 25, 2013 23:54:34 GMT
Global temperature is cherry picking but putting a magnifying glass on Siberia is not? 15 years no warming; check 23 years no statistically significant warming; check. Global ice normal; check. No tropospheric hot spot (the holy grail of AGW); check. Are you saying the July global anomaly of -.13 is incorrect? Climate models are only off by 400%, but that's probably spot on in your book. Where's that missing hot spot hiding again? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 26, 2013 0:36:56 GMT
Global temperature is cherry picking but putting a magnifying glass on Siberia is not? 15 years no warming; check 23 years no statistically significant warming; check. Global ice normal; check. No tropospheric hot spot (the holy grail of AGW); check. Are you saying the July global anomaly of -.13 is incorrect? Climate models are only off by 400%, but that's probably spot on in your book. Where's that missing hot spot hiding again? No doubt Al Gore took a swim in the ocean to find it. |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 26, 2013 1:00:23 GMT
Mkelter, I also notice that you are a so called terminal state of climate change deniers. Old Skool state one was "it only happens because people measure temps at airports" and the trendy stage final is "let's party like hell as climate change is here". . . |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 26, 2013 12:10:47 GMT
"I reckon I'm not as gullible as you when it comes to swallowing every line of BS fed to us by our governments. Since we're talking about spending a lot of money to get very little results, I prefer to remain skeptical."
So this is a only (U.S.) politics to you, and nothing else? I would not consider myself "gullible" at all. I don't vote green and don't subscribe to most of their line.
I think poiitics and the undeniable physics must be kept separate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 26, 2013 13:04:49 GMT
"I reckon I'm not as gullible as you when it comes to swallowing every line of BS fed to us by our governments. Since we're talking about spending a lot of money to get very little results, I prefer to remain skeptical." So this is a only (U.S.) politics to you, and nothing else? I would not consider myself "gullible" at all. I don't vote green and don't subscribe to most of their line. I think poiitics and the undeniable physics must be kept separate.
In principle I agree that politics must be kept separate from undeniable physics, as well as from undeniable chemistry, thermodynamics, hydrology, microbioloby, and any other discipline that SHOULD be a part of reputable climate science. Unfortunately, the process has been grossly politicized on every continent to a point where political decisions have driven funding for limited scopes of study--mainly on CO2--to the exclusion of disciplines and research necessary to ferret out the question of Natural vs. Anthropogenic. I presume you missed the Climategate memo.
Since the US Government is already talking about creating new regulation based on half-baked science, the discussion of science becomes even more politicized, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 26, 2013 13:10:19 GMT
numerouno:
You are 100% correct in that climate science in the USA has become politics. A prime example is the outcry and teeth gnashing as of late concerning "fracking". Fracking, as Glen can help us with, has been in use for over 50 years in the USA. The only reason it is now so bad all of a sudden is that fracking provides very large reserves of natural gas for human use. This doesn't fit with the AGW and "Green Energy" proponents well, so it has to be a new boogy man.
Just as CNN made a splash in ref to Methane release in the arctic.....we are all going to burn.
Well, no we aren't.
Climate variables/weather have always been with us. That is the nature of a chaotic system. To tease out the effects of CO2 is a very difficult tease. A lot of what happens naturally had been attributed to CO2. That song and dance is slowly being put to rest. Not by climate researchers per se, but the astro physics branches of science.
One can only hope that in the end the truth and real mechanisms of climate are discovered.
As far as deep ocean heating.......I have bridges to sell to those who actually believe this. Heat does not mysteriously jump 700 meters with no effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 26, 2013 15:31:52 GMT
As far as deep ocean heating.......I have bridges to sell to those who actually believe this. Heat does not mysteriously jump 700 meters with no effect. But Sigurdur, it doesn't have to jump! Obviously the buoys are leaking and continents are rising from isostatic rebound. This explains everything including the "slow down" in sea level rise. this following chart is just a coincidence.  One can easily see an average rise in temperature in this chart two tenths of a degree per decade solidifying the conclusion solar maximums have no net effect on the climate because they are merely cancelled out by the solar minimums. Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 clearly shows that to be the case. Presumably they are still trying to tease out the solar values from their work and as soon as that work is complete, not only will the science be settled it will be actually quantified. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 26, 2013 17:28:10 GMT
As far as deep ocean heating.......I have bridges to sell to those who actually believe this. Heat does not mysteriously jump 700 meters with no effect. But Sigurdur, it doesn't have to jump! Obviously the buoys are leaking and continents are rising from isostatic rebound. This explains everything including the "slow down" in sea level rise. Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 clearly shows that to be the case. Presumably they are still trying to tease out the solar values from their work and as soon as that work is complete, not only will the science be settled it will be actually quantified. Don't hold your breath on that "work" being completed anytime soon. And I still have bridges to sell....  |
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jul 26, 2013 22:19:47 GMT
Oh Ice fisher! Your graph misses out on 2013??? What will our current temp peak do to your hypothosis??? Is it just 'Weather' again? Meanwhile, back to the Arctic. Canadian ice service have introduced a new ice type "Decayed Ice"....just in time for the retirement of "Paleocryistic ice" ( not seen in the basin since 2011......and at least 10yrs away from it's reintroduction by it's very nature....). We know how 'Paleocryistic ice' dealt with minor summer cyclones but how does 'Decayed ice'  We're about to find out. Keep an eye on 'Area' over the next 5 days! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 26, 2013 23:18:04 GMT
"I reckon I'm not as gullible as you when it comes to swallowing every line of BS fed to us by our governments. Since we're talking about spending a lot of money to get very little results, I prefer to remain skeptical." So this is a only (U.S.) politics to you, and nothing else? I would not consider myself "gullible" at all. I don't vote green and don't subscribe to most of their line. I think poiitics and the undeniable physics must be kept separate. You were probably right first time. Numerouno saw a Finnish TV program that led him to believe Finnish icebreakers had some kind of super capability to break ice, which implied the Baltic Sea ice was somehow immensely thick before the 1980's came along. Later he supported this belief from another Finnish TV production where he wanted to believe the ancient Sampo icebreaker could manage 18M of solidly frozen ice without having to stop and ram it repeatedly, whereas in reality Sampo could only manage about 1m of pure solid ice in a continuous motion and the 'superships' from the 1970s could manage about 1.7M beyond which they would have to repeatedly ram the ice to get thru. Even the testimony of the boats designer himself and the boat builders themselves would not get him to alter course where no matter what the realities were, he believed that Baltic ice was solidly frozen even while insulated by snow and air all the way to a depth of 24m so that the 1970's boats were designed to create a trench in the solid ice and they could do this without having to reverse 100 meters or so and charge forwards to ram their way thru what in fact was a thin maximum 80cm frozen level over a deeper loosely arranged ice debris. Notwithstanding the facts Numerouno spent months abusively avoiding reality simply because he watched a TV program Related to this, it was interesting to experience Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth in action during my phone call with him, when he claimed the C02 rich thin Marsian atmosphere had no greenhouse effect because it had no C02, and repeatedly questioned me to ask me why it had C02, 'how did it get there?' 'why was it not all converted to carbonate' and for ever onwards, and compare him to Numerouno where both seem unable to allow reality to speak for itself if it does not fit their belief systems. Numerouno is for example endlessly going on about my mental illness.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 27, 2013 0:36:20 GMT
Oh Ice fisher! Your graph misses out on 2013??? What will our current temp peak do to your hypothosis??? Is it just 'Weather' again? Meanwhile, back to the Arctic. Canadian ice service have introduced a new ice type "Decayed Ice"....just in time for the retirement of "Paleocryistic ice" ( not seen in the basin since 2011......and at least 10yrs away from it's reintroduction by it's very nature....). We know how 'Paleocryistic ice' dealt with minor summer cyclones but how does 'Decayed ice' We're about to find out. Keep an eye on 'Area' over the next 5 days! Graywolf: If the ice area doesn't decrease rapidly, it will come as a shock to most folks. |
|
We're about to find out. Keep an eye on 'Area' over the next 5 days!