|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 12, 2009 17:11:51 GMT
glc writes "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. "
Before 2007, Arctic sea ice was declining at a rate of a little over 1% per year. I suppose you could call this decline "significant", but it was not particularly large. I take little notice of what non-validated models predict. The story behind the apparent recovery of 2009 ice, is that the weasel worded predictions that the Arctic would soon be free of ice in summer, are rather unlikely to be correct. So here is another doom and gloom scenario from the warmaholics, like hurricanes, winter ski seasons, Great Lake water levels, etc. that is about to bite the dust.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 12, 2009 17:17:16 GMT
Sadly, disproved alarmist warnings are not taken as good news by the true believers.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 12, 2009 17:28:36 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. The disclaimer about is is the thing about on record. The idea that there are no records previously is just ignoring the total record. This cycle has been going on for centuries, as is evidenced by the north shore of Greenland as an example. When that happened a few thousand years ago, the ice had to be realllly small in area. And it is on record. I love that we have increased data now with the addition of satallite observations. But even the satallite data is not as good as ground based and ship log evidence. However it is wider in scope and gives us a broader idea.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 12, 2009 19:20:20 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scam.
The hockey stick representing the Earth's past temperatures is a joke and yet the science community attempts to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 12, 2009 20:20:29 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scam. The hockey stick representing the Earth's past temperatures is a joke and yet the science community attempts to defend it. I don't think any credible climate scientist will defend Mann's paper where he exibited the hockey stick graph. IT is not even used in literature anymore it was that bad. But one paper does not make all papers bad. The sad thing is Mann still tries to defend his graph. IF he doesn't know full well that it is not credible, then he is really beyond hope for any kind of climate discussion for I would say that even I, who know virtually nothing, would know more than he does. OR at least my nose works, and a skunk still smells like a skunk.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 12, 2009 20:43:42 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. The oral submarine record seems to show that 1950's submarines could not penetrate more than about 30 cm of unbroken ice. It was a very thin amount anyway. So what they were doing was finding thinner areas near the poles and coming up thru that. It is the nature of sea ice that it is a moving heaving thing unless the flows are very old ice probably coming from shore areas where currents are lower. Sub photos are not going to tell us much. And submariners narratives simply record what they saw. Thin ice. What we seem to know is that the early travellors to the ice shelfs around 1900 could not understand what was forming the area between what they could see was land and the pack ice where the ice shelves were formed like sand dunes. I think it is true to say that such ice formations have been majorly impacted in recent decades. However all of this is somewhat irrelevant if we have been warming since around 1850
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 12, 2009 21:37:13 GMT
Heh, but the arctic sea ice isn't permanent by any means. It is after all...floating. Little of it was ever more than a decade old.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 13, 2009 8:28:28 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scam
No - there is evidence that the arctic was in a warm phase of an apparent cycle. There is no evidence that the temperature peak was as high as the current peak.
It's unlikely that ice extent was lower in the in 1930s/1940s as temperatures rose from a much lower base than to-day.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 13, 2009 8:31:48 GMT
Heh, but the arctic sea ice isn't permanent by any means. It is after all...floating. Little of it was ever more than a decade old. I agree and if the area of warmer sea water in contact with ice was reducing contact area as the ice progressively froze up at some point the earth would warm again and begin melting the ice to cool the earth so if the ice carries on melting it will get very cold. Imagine the heat loss to outer space with a warm sea exposed to the arctic night all winter! Without the blanket of ice it will be dramatically colder
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 13, 2009 9:08:19 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scamNo - there is evidence that the arctic was in a warm phase of an apparent cycle. There is no evidence that the temperature peak was as high as the current peak. It's unlikely that ice extent was lower in the in 1930s/1940s as temperatures rose from a much lower base than to-day. No matter how many times you attempt to talk the little ice age out of existance it appears that it did exist and it appears we have been warming ever since maybe back to where it was before that cooling began. I learnt that a satellite is calibrated by a human observer selecting clear pixels and getting temperature data from the earths surface for that pixel. Meanwhile the equipment in a lab can be calibrated to +/- .2 accuracy. Outside of a lab you are probably looking at +/- .4 accuracy. Once you are up in outerspace pearing down thru the atmospheric distortions the ability to measure the temperature accurately is more or less none existant. How about we look at the current state of science of measuring the earths global surface from outerspace? Back in 1996 it was impossible to measure temperatures from outerspace with the accuracy needed for climate studies. These things were up there for weather observation. There is no data of sufficient length of time for the earth to say it is warming now all over the earth as a whole earth in the last 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 13, 2009 10:46:29 GMT
Yesterday I put up the following.
"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. "
I see a few posts from you glc. But I seem to have been neglected. I suspect, once again, you will provide no reference.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 13, 2009 13:20:12 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scam. The hockey stick representing the Earth's past temperatures is a joke and yet the science community attempts to defend it. I don't think any credible climate scientist will defend Mann's paper where he exibited the hockey stick graph. IT is not even used in literature anymore it was that bad. But one paper does not make all papers bad. The sad thing is Mann still tries to defend his graph. IF he doesn't know full well that it is not credible, then he is really beyond hope for any kind of climate discussion for I would say that even I, who know virtually nothing, would know more than he does. OR at least my nose works, and a skunk still smells like a skunk. As far as I know over at Climate Audit they are still fighting the hockey stick theory as the hockey stick proponrnets came up with new evidence. Of course it is nonsense, that won't stop the AGW believers from using it. I am not so sure that the IPCC has entirely dropped it.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 13, 2009 13:22:54 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scamNo - there is evidence that the arctic was in a warm phase of an apparent cycle. There is no evidence that the temperature peak was as high as the current peak. It's unlikely that ice extent was lower in the in 1930s/1940s as temperatures rose from a much lower base than to-day. There is huge amounts of evidence. You are not interested in the truth so I won't bother. Henry Larsen's 1944 trip could not be repeated in the 90's or 2000's. Just one tiny bit .
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 13, 2009 13:31:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 13, 2009 13:32:19 GMT
There is a huge amount of evidence from the Thirties and Forties that it warmer than now. The scientists delibaretly ignore the actual evidence so they can prop up their AGW scamNo - there is evidence that the arctic was in a warm phase of an apparent cycle. There is no evidence that the temperature peak was as high as the current peak. It's unlikely that ice extent was lower in the in 1930s/1940s as temperatures rose from a much lower base than to-day. There is huge amounts of evidence. You are not interested in the truth so I won't bother. Henry Larsen's 1944 trip could not be repeated in the 90's or 2000's. Just one tiny bit . There is documented evidence of the lack of ice during the early to mid 40's. Nothing new here actually, as part of the cycle. Not worth dening.
|
|