|
Post by socold on Aug 11, 2009 21:24:39 GMT
yea yea sure whatever, at least I am not extrapolating every little jump and stall in arctic sea ice. The skeptics are becoming more desperate as days go past looking at shorter and shorter timespans.
I remember last month when UAH was low and GISTEMP was high all the skeptics were focusing on temperature and ignoring the sea ice decline. Now we see yet another 180 switch as temperature records have become inconvienient to focus on but there is some "play" to be got out of sea ice.
Who knows next month it might be all back to the temperature records, or something else.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 11, 2009 21:59:25 GMT
yea yea sure whatever, at least I am not extrapolating every little jump and stall in arctic sea ice. The skeptics are becoming more desperate as days go past looking at shorter and shorter timespans. I remember last month when UAH was low and GISTEMP was high all the skeptics were focusing on temperature and ignoring the sea ice decline. Now we see yet another 180 switch as temperature records have become inconvienient to focus on but there is some "play" to be got out of sea ice. Who knows next month it might be all back to the temperature records, or something else. Climate varies. You are focusing on a tiny amount of data and wanting to convince people you know what it means when it is more or less meaningless in the noise of the available data particularly when there is general agreement we are in a warming trend anyway. We have no idea what the next few winters or summers are going to be like. I see the Brits are now hauling the boat over the ice to small leads and hoping to get to open water 5 to 10 miles away and it is now 11 degrees and they have been told by CIS there is 90% more ice than normal in the passage. The others at Resolute have been told it might be 3 weeks before the ice clears for them if it clears.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Aug 12, 2009 1:52:20 GMT
Well, the GLAAM anomaly has been wobbling pretty close to zero with no significant extended anomalies. We're a tad under. In any case, we're not seeing a lot of strong convective deltas. Speculating, that could have something to do with the current solar flatline. We usually warm (SSTs) when sunspot derivative values drop for an extended period and that's what currently going on. Warming SSTs don't particularly translate to less ice, though.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 12, 2009 2:12:50 GMT
yea yea sure whatever, at least I am not extrapolating every little jump and stall in arctic sea ice. The skeptics are becoming more desperate as days go past looking at shorter and shorter timespans. I remember last month when UAH was low and GISTEMP was high all the skeptics were focusing on temperature and ignoring the sea ice decline. Now we see yet another 180 switch as temperature records have become inconvienient to focus on but there is some "play" to be got out of sea ice. Who knows next month it might be all back to the temperature records, or something else. I think that the time is past for skeptic or believer. IT is interesting to watch how the ice plays. Just for the sheer pleasure of gaining knowledge. We all know the current ice extent is nothing new one way or the other, but now we can actually view it, talk about it, and enjoy it. IF a meteor was going to colide with the earth, we would all be talking about it as a once in a millinieum thing. The rise and fall of Actic ice is not only seasonal, but cyclical as well. The last time the ice was comparable was during the 40's, so it is a leading indicator of what one can expect. The lack of continued warming, flatlining if you will, the apparant start of an increase in trend of seasonal ice would indicate that we are in for approx 30-40 years of cooling. As for myself, I have grown to hate that cooling as it is playing havoc with my crops. When I look at climatology records that depict the last cooling phase, it is not condusive to profitability in my area and I do like to eat if nothing else. So for some of us, it isn't skeptic nor AGW. IT is a realist looking at hard data making decissions.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 12, 2009 2:48:30 GMT
"yea yea sure whatever, at least I am not extrapolating every little jump and stall in arctic sea ice. The skeptics are becoming more desperate as days go past looking at shorter and shorter timespans."
socold- that is exactly what you AGW true believers have done- each year's ice is *proof* of impending doom, each hurricane is *proof* of impending doom, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Do not now, as the latest AGW focus of panic is proving to be like all the others - false- try and assert that we skeptics have been setting any of these rules. We have just been pointing out that the ice was not the great cause of concern you wish it was. And we are being vindicated.
"I remember last month when UAH was low and GISTEMP was high all the skeptics were focusing on temperature and ignoring the sea ice decline." No, we were pointing out that the sea ice decline was no big deal.
Now we see yet another 180 switch as temperature records have become inconvenient to focus on but there is some "play" to be got out of sea ice.
Who knows next month it might be all back to the temperature records, or something else."
socold, AGW fanaticism is built on doing exactly what you claim we skeptics have done. Interesting bit of projection on your part.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 12, 2009 11:51:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 12, 2009 12:33:02 GMT
From that page they say: Ice extent is the cumulative area of all polar grid cells of the Northern Hemisphere that have at least 15% sea ice concentration, using the NORSEX algorithm. Ice area is the sum of the grid cell areas multiplied by the ice concentration for all cells with ice concentrations of at least 15%. Ice extent and ice area are calculated for a grid resolution of 25 km. The difference between area and extent for our data is always positive. This difference represent the area of the open water in the pixels partly covered by ice (i.e. ice concentration less than 100%). In other words, ice area takes into account that there is a fraction of open water in pixels with ice concentration above 15 % and below 100 %". Ice extent does not include this effect and gives therefore a higher number of square km than ice area.So there is a simple difference between the two it appears. Extent just says that area has ice in it of 15% or greater as viewed from above and we count that as 100% ice for each 27KM block of sea we observe from above Area takes each 27KM block over 15% ice and only gives you say 15% or 55% of 27KM of ice to count towards the total depending upon the observed concentration. The difference between the two today shows that most of the extent or area covered has a very high ice concentration since today it is 6.9 million extent or spread of ice versus 5.3 million total ice area. So then we have to guess why area is rising. In each case of extent versus area you are observing visible ice from above so freezing would i think favour also extent. But as the ice breaks up then it will spread out as per this video i happened upon the other day www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewHIo2ekU4g&feature=relatedSo if you had 15 bergs in 100 area of water you get 100 extent and 15 area. Once it breaks up you might get 100 extent and 100 area. Apart from break up as per the video, most of a berg is underwater as we know but if the berg cant find equilibrium because of other bergs it will be deep and thin with not much area and if free it will be flat and shallow with more visible area thats my best guess anyway as to what might be happening from the point of view of almost zero knowledge ;D This video has an incredible beginning. It is not clear what is happening as you watch it but is almost unbelievable www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt6digvuLsk&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 12, 2009 12:36:41 GMT
socold writes "yea yea sure whatever, at least I am not extrapolating every little jump and stall in arctic sea ice. The skeptics are becoming more desperate as days go past looking at shorter and shorter timespans."
I am not sure which skeptics you are referring to, but I do not consider what is happening to be the least bit worrying or unusual. There is a steady, almost monotonic, rise in CO2 concentrations. If AGW is correct, then there ought to be a steady rise both in temperatures, and in things that indicate temperatures are rising. There ought to be CONSISTENT indications that world temperatures are rising.
There is no sign that world temperatures are rising. If the world has gone through a shallow maximum for temperature, then one would expect that towards the peak, where we now are, with noisey data, there will be indications that temperatures are not necessarily falling.
But the other indications that the warmaholics latched on to to claim they showed the effects of AGW are not, in the least, consistent. Values for Accumulated Cylcone Energy are not rising consistiently. Glaciers are not all retrating. Winter ski seasons in both hemispheres are doing just fine. Sea levels are not rising in any way that is unusual. Sea temperatures are not rising consistently. OHC is not rising consistently. etc. etc.
The latest is Arctic sea ice. The unusual wind event that occurred in July 2007 blew lots of multiyear ice out of the Arctic Ocean. The warmaholics claimed this was a sign of AGW; it was not. Now this year's data seems to confirm that the Arctic sea ice is returning, albeit very slowly, to conditions which prevailed before 2007; one cannot make 4 year ice in 2 years.
So please dont put words in my mouth and claim I am being desperate. I am being very quietly coinfident.
|
|
|
Post by zer0th on Aug 12, 2009 13:17:54 GMT
socold must be confused with NSIDC's Mark Serreze. He's issued so many column-inch generating, over-egged prognostications of woe (failed) that they decided to make him director. My religious parallel would be... lying for Jesus.
Clearly, it will be huge disappointment for the theologically committed should the extent well-exceed 2008. May they be frustrated, like this Nobel Prize-winning idiot, Thomas Schelling...
"It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious."
"I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change."
A regular humanitarian, too.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 12, 2009 13:55:23 GMT
socold must be confused with NSIDC's Mark Serreze. He's issued so many column-inch generating, over-egged prognostications of woe (failed) that they decided to make him director. My religious parallel would be... lying for Jesus. Clearly, it will be huge disappointment for the theologically committed should the extent well-exceed 2008. May they be frustrated, like this Nobel Prize-winning idiot, Thomas Schelling... "It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious." "I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change." A regular humanitarian, too. Socold might be Mark Serreze for all the effort he puts into convincing us we should be justifying his predictions and salary and not paying any attention whatsoever to the possibility somebody is going to get major egg on their face some time soon. The whole topic just gets more and more interesting. On the other hand I like the voodoo angle too because when I became an unbeliever 3 weeks ago i began to see thousands of rising temperatures in July and record cold temperatures and ice extent in Antartica that never existed before ever and now the Canadian coastguard can be quoted for 'never seen anything like this in my life' and 'there is 90% more ice than normal' or 'its not melting here it is just getting blown to where it is warmer' ;D A classic quote! Meanwhile this chart i have been following now has -5 on it after -4 yesterday and -3 the previous day. www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gifBut the temperatures are not so reliable. Some canadian stations seem way out compared to Canadian weather service and most of it done with satellite which is unreliable. It might give a trend though or maybe not. It has entertainment value at least!
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 12, 2009 13:58:39 GMT
Here it is only July and already 3 voters have bit the dust. 7.5 was way too optimistic. I voted 4.5 and changed it to 4.0 to even out the 12 sane votes to 4 each for 4, 4.5, and 5. So far the melt is still on track to be a record or near-record. I'm amazed at some of the posters here - saying that everything is rigged, fudged, and lied about by all scientists save a couple of crackpots... er.. heroes. And all for grant money the scientists don't even get to keep! Truly amazing how low some posters will stoop to try and salvage their failed premise. The ice IS melting. Global warming IS real. Any of you deniers feeling sheepish yet?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 12, 2009 15:53:58 GMT
I am not sure which skeptics you are referring to, but I do not consider what is happening to be the least bit worrying or unusual. There is a steady, almost monotonic, rise in CO2 concentrations. If AGW is correct, then there ought to be a steady rise both in temperatures, and in things that indicate temperatures are rising.
This is not true. Whatever you've heard, the rises in global tmeperatures is unikely to be steady or monotonic. There will be pauses, possible falls and sharp increases. Natural variablility will amplify ghg effects some times and negate them at others
There ought to be CONSISTENT indications that world temperatures are rising.
There is - look at the the temperature trend over the last ~30 years.
There is no sign that world temperatures are rising.
There is - look at the temeprature trend over the last ~30 years.
If the world has gone through a shallow maximum for temperature, then one would expect that towards the peak, where we now are, with noisey data, there will be indications that temperatures are not necessarily falling.
They aren't falling. There was a dip due to the 2007/08 La Nina but that appears to be over. There was also a dip due to the La Nina in 1998 many sceptices were saying exactly what you're saying now, i.e. that temperatures had stopped rising.
The latest is Arctic sea ice. The unusual wind event that occurred in July 2007 blew lots of multiyear ice out of the Arctic Ocean. The warmaholics claimed this was a sign of AGW; it was not.
It was a sign that the ice was particularly fragile.
Now this year's data seems to confirm that the Arctic sea ice is returning, albeit very slowly, to conditions which prevailed before 2007; one cannot make 4 year ice in 2 years.
Before 2007, arctic sea ice was in significant decline. You're right that 2007 was an outlier, but arctic ice extent in 2003-2006 was well below the 30 year average. Whatever the eventual minimum for 2009 it will be well below the estimate given by the models.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 12, 2009 16:58:28 GMT
glc writes "There is - look at the the temperature trend over the last ~30 years."
We have been over this many times. The 30 year temperature trend shows that temperatures HAVE RISEN. The trend does NOT show that temperatures ARE STILL RISING. Unfortunately, this subject is so complex from a statistical point of view, that trying to discuss this not so subtle difference on this sort of blog is an exercise in futility.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 12, 2009 17:03:36 GMT
glc writes "It was a sign that the ice was particularly fragile."
Reference please. Over the months I have crossed swords with you on this board, I have asked for a reference on many occasions. I cannot recall that you have ever provided one. Will the same "trend" continue? I expect so, as I have researched the July 2007 in some considerable detail, and have seen no such reference. I can, of course, always be mistaken, as I have been many times in the past.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 12, 2009 17:10:20 GMT
The latest is Arctic sea ice. The unusual wind event that occurred in July 2007 blew lots of multiyear ice out of the Arctic Ocean. The warmaholics claimed this was a sign of AGW; it was not. It was a sign that the ice was particularly fragile. Now this year's data seems to confirm that the Arctic sea ice is returning, albeit very slowly, to conditions which prevailed before 2007; one cannot make 4 year ice in 2 years.Before 2007, arctic sea ice was in significant decline. You're right that 2007 was an outlier, but arctic ice extent in 2003-2006 was well below the 30 year average. Whatever the eventual minimum for 2009 it will be well below the estimate given by the models. 30 years isn't squat when it comes to climate. In the 1950's our submarines were popping through thin one year north pole ice more than a decade after the last time temperatures hit a peak in the early 1940's. Business as usual. . . .just that you only get to see low ice periods once or twice in a lifetime.
|
|