|
Post by magellan on Apr 30, 2009 1:49:06 GMT
That's rather simplistic logic. That's why it is so clear. It's a simple concept. The 2007 minimum saw the ice extent shrink back to the "gates" of the North Pole. A deeper minimum in 2008 could very well have seen the North Pole outside the ice extent. I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole. socold, if you have evidence for supporting CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt, by all means present it in the 'challenge to warmers #2' thread. So far there its a bust.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 30, 2009 15:30:59 GMT
" I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole." You are using "decline continues" as though it were current and true. As the decline reversed a couple of years back, it would seem rather unlikely now unless it reverses again in the distant future. Of course it may well start to decline again in 30 years but people will have forgotten about CO2 hysteria by then. Reversed a few years back? Then best you can say is it reversed since 2007. Although the 2008 in itself is far below 2000-2006 levels. What would you have called 1996? I also notice that 2000,2001,2002 had an increasing trend. Would you have cited that as ice decline reverses too? If this was a performance graph of an employee, I would fire them. I wouldn't think "hey they've improved in 2008, they must be getting better"
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 30, 2009 15:46:09 GMT
That's why it is so clear. It's a simple concept. The 2007 minimum saw the ice extent shrink back to the "gates" of the North Pole. A deeper minimum in 2008 could very well have seen the North Pole outside the ice extent. I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole. socold, if you have evidence for supporting CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt, by all means present it in the 'challenge to warmers #2' thread. So far there its a bust. 1) Theory shows that rising co2 results in strong warming in the arctic igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/2) A warmer arctic leads to sea ice decline
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 30, 2009 15:48:51 GMT
According to the NSIDC, 2009 is now very close to the 1979-00 mean. Is this meaningless at the end of April? I don't think so...note that 2009 has been consistently running well above 2005-07, the years leading up to the huge summer decline in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 30, 2009 18:38:05 GMT
Wow! I guess those results are being driven by the "THICK ONE YEAR" ice the Catlin survey has been discovering all over the place!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 30, 2009 23:26:24 GMT
socold <I would fire them. I wouldn't think "hey they've improved in 2008, they must be getting better"> Just fire the person with the stoop that gave you the anonymous graph with no axis units and look at the real data! i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpgPlease stop denying that it's getting colder as it's just so obvious that it's no longer funny. Why not try to explain how CO2 can produce Global Cooling! I would be interested to have a read of your explanation of the real world cooling event, 'models' are so last year.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 1, 2009 2:00:11 GMT
socold, if you have evidence for supporting CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt, by all means present it in the 'challenge to warmers #2' thread. So far there its a bust. 1) Theory shows that rising co2 results in strong warming in the arctic igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/2) A warmer arctic leads to sea ice decline You have proposed a hypothesis, not a theory. Now test it! Am I not asking the right questions or what? There are people who devote their lives studying the Arctic, and live there. Somehow they appear to be a bit more knowledgeable than a cube boy playing climate model video games in California. The conclusions of the following paper state: denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdfConclusions The recent retreat of arctic ice requires an understanding of whether the ice reduction is a persistent signature of global warming due to anthropogenic impact on climate or it is a minimum of a low-frequency natural climate oscillation. Numerical models of Earth climate system [Vinnikov et al., 1999] and direct observations [Rothrock et al., 1999] show substantial ice decline in the recent decades. Vinnikov et al. suggested that the observed decrease of arctic ice extent is related to anthropogenic global warming. However, Vinje [2000] using observations over the past 135 years showed that the recent decrease in ice extent in the Nordic Seas is within the range of natural variability since the 18th century. A combination of century- and half-a-century-long data records and model integrations leads us to conclude that the natural low-frequency oscillation (LFO) exists and is an important contributor to the recent anomalous environmental conditions in the Arctic. This mode of oscillation is related to uctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic [Delworth and Mann, 2000]. Comparison of the century-long NAO index time series and half a century time series of the polar region SAT, SLP di_erences, and wind vorticity index shows the existence of the LFO mode in the latter time series. There is evidence that the LFO has a strong impact on ice and ocean variability. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
and Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdfThis letter offers new evidence motivating a more serious consideration of the potential Arctic temperature responses as a consequence of the decadal, multidecadal and longer-term persistent forcing by the ever-changing solar irradiance both in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI, i.e., integrated over all wavelengths) and the related UV irradiance. The support for such a solar modulator can be minimally derived from the large (>75%) explained variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic surface air temperatures (SATs) by TSI and from the time-frequency structures of the TSI and Arctic SAT variability as examined by wavelet analyses. The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun’s intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales. and Greenland, the now forgotten "canary in the coalmine" poster child for AGW: Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005. a snippet from the conclusion: To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930. The temperature trend during the next ten years may be a decisive factor in a possible detection of an anthropogenic part of climate signal over area of the Greenland ice sheet. In contrast to your claim, there is no clear signal in support of the CO2 AGW hypothesis. At best it is weak and nearly undetectable. Arctic ice for whatever reason is gaining rapidly which flies in the face of every single AGW propagandist news release from the various journals such as Met O etc. In a year's time, what will be the excuses? Now, I for one do not think "peer review" is the last word in science discussion, so if there is better evidence to support your POV, present it. All I'm asking for is solid data, not long poetic gibberish speeches about theories and such. One liner "read the IPCC" type responses will only beget ridicule.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 1, 2009 3:14:02 GMT
Socold, can you provide a source for your chart and what the y-axis represents? I'm really curious as to where/how the numbers came from and what's being measured. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on May 1, 2009 10:19:45 GMT
socold <I would fire them. I wouldn't think "hey they've improved in 2008, they must be getting better"> Just fire the person with the stoop that gave you the anonymous graph with no axis units and look at the real data! i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpgPlease stop denying that it's getting colder as it's just so obvious that it's no longer funny. Why not try to explain how CO2 can produce Global Cooling! I would be interested to have a read of your explanation of the real world cooling event, 'models' are so last year. Now that's just plain rude. It is obvious the X axis is years & the Y axis is numbers of climatologists who have contributed meaningfully to the Climate debate. If the current trend continues a few more decades we will be up into double figures.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 1, 2009 19:08:35 GMT
socold <I would fire them. I wouldn't think "hey they've improved in 2008, they must be getting better"> Just fire the person with the stoop that gave you the anonymous graph with no axis units and look at the real data! i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/2009x.jpgPlease stop denying that it's getting colder as it's just so obvious that it's no longer funny. Why not try to explain how CO2 can produce Global Cooling! I would be interested to have a read of your explanation of the real world cooling event, 'models' are so last year. You mean Y axis. Surely.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 1, 2009 19:10:17 GMT
Socold, can you provide a source for your chart and what the y-axis represents? I'm really curious as to where/how the numbers came from and what's being measured. Thanks. The graph is the arctic summer minimum for each year. Here's the graph labelled better.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on May 4, 2009 11:55:29 GMT
To get back to the POLITICS of Global Warming, read the instructions by the Greens to the New York Times NOT to use the term Global Warming, and to keep off the subject of CO2 and return to other (real) pollutants, www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 4, 2009 12:38:10 GMT
To get back to the POLITICS of Global Warming, read the instructions by the Greens to the New York Times NOT to use the term Global Warming, and to keep off the subject of CO2 and return to other (real) pollutants, www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This "ecoAmerica" organisation just sounds like a marketing organisation trying to find a consumer/marketing niche. It's greenwash for ignorant consumers.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 5, 2009 2:01:13 GMT
" I am sure we will see that happen in the future if decline continues. Then you'll be able to surface a whole amarda of submarines at the north pole."
You are using "decline continues" as though it were current and true. As the decline reversed a couple of years back, it would seem rather unlikely now unless it reverses again in the distant future. Of course it may well start to decline again in 30 years but people will have forgotten about CO2 hysteria by then.
(Socold) Reversed a few years back? Then best you can say is it reversed since 2007. I always thought that a couple was "two". What is the source of your graph?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 5, 2009 2:37:20 GMT
Wouldn't it be great if trends could be used to predict the future?
|
|