PDA

View Full Version : Antarctic Ice shelves not melting as previously thought.



RodSBT
06-25-2012, 09:48 AM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/

"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.


According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:"


"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."



The paper:
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL051012-pip.pdf

wardd
06-25-2012, 09:56 AM
artic

Waddie
06-25-2012, 10:01 AM
Quit confusing me....... I'm committed to believing that climate change is totally man-made and causing massive melt-downs. I am unwilling to consider any contradictory evidence...... end of discussion.......

regards,
Waddie

Gerarddm
06-25-2012, 10:11 AM
Interesting.

And yet Arctic ice shrinketh. Soon the Northwest Passage will be a reality.

wardd
06-25-2012, 10:31 AM
Quit confusing me....... I'm committed to believing that climate change is totally man-made and causing massive melt-downs. I am unwilling to consider any contradictory evidence...... end of discussion.......

regards,
Waddie

what contradictory evidence?

Waddie
06-25-2012, 10:37 AM
what contradictory evidence?

Here's an example; last year while there were wildfires burning in California, a TV announcer said that just one wildfire put more pollutants into the air than all of the cars in California did in an entire year. And in another story a reporter said that one volcano could spew more pollution than all the cars on the planet did in a year. (This was during the Icelandic eruption). So which is it; man made or nature made? or nature with a little push from man? or man made with help from nature? or none of the above?

regards,
Waddie

wardd
06-25-2012, 10:48 AM
Here's an example; last year while there were wildfires burning in California, a TV announcer said that just one wildfire put more pollutants into the air than all of the cars in California did in an entire year. And in another story a reporter said that one volcano could spew more pollution than all the cars on the planet did in a year. (This was during the Icelandic eruption). So which is it; man made or nature made? or nature with a little push from man? or man made with help from nature? or none of the above?

regards,
Waddie

last i checked, reporters were not climate scientists

Waddie
06-25-2012, 10:57 AM
last i checked, reporters were not climate scientists

Jeez, Wardd, if you can't trust a TV news reporter who can you trust?

Could they be right? What if wildfires and volcano's DO put out those levels of pollutants?

regards,
Waddie

wardd
06-25-2012, 10:59 AM
Jeez, Wardd, if you can't trust a TV news reporter who can you trust?

Could they be right? What if wildfires and volcano's DO put out those levels of pollutants?

regards,
Waddie

if so, should we be adding at the rate we are?

BrianW
06-25-2012, 11:03 AM
Here's an example; last year while there were wildfires burning in California, a TV announcer said that just one wildfire put more pollutants into the air than all of the cars in California did in an entire year. And in another story a reporter said that one volcano could spew more pollution than all the cars on the planet did in a year.


last i checked, reporters were not climate scientists

Those were facts on pollution given off in a certain event. There was no mention of effect on climate.

wardd
06-25-2012, 11:19 AM
Those were facts on pollution given off in a certain event. There was no mention of effect on climate.

i don't know they were facts

RodSBT
06-25-2012, 11:26 AM
i don't know they were facts

But computer models are? You're missing Waddies point.

Boston
06-25-2012, 11:27 AM
wild fires and volcano's do sporadically put out large amounts of CO2 but they also put out large amounts particulates. the net result is a slight localized cooling effect and no appreciable increase in worldwide CO2. Human activities on the other hand pound out massive amounts of CO2 on a consistently increasing basis. We've recently topped 400 ppm for the first time in about the last 15 million years. So although the denial machine typically quotes this volcano/wildfire thing, in the end its a rather specious argument.

The real problem is that once CO2 is released into the system it takes a very long time for it to be locked down in the form of rock again. So we're kinda stuck with the increases, which are beginning to trigger the organic carbons, not good. Once that happens, its eat drink and be merry time.

Waddie
06-25-2012, 11:29 AM
Those were facts on pollution given off in a certain event. There was no mention of effect on climate.

If those statements are factual, then one can extrapolate an effect on climate.

regards,
Waddie

wardd
06-25-2012, 11:29 AM
But computer models are? You're missing Waddies point.

computer models are predictors of a range of possibilities

which i believe more than others communing with an unseen god

Boston
06-25-2012, 11:48 AM
if being the key part, and no they aren't factual in that its a half truth.

I believe the article which was referenced in support of the idea that the antarctic ice shelf isn't melting is found as an opinion piece and not a published work. I also couldn't help but notice the dubious character of the site and the articles author. I'd be hesitant to consider the work by the scientists mentioned in this article as being in any way definitive when there are innumerable parallel studies showing the exact opposite.

Also considering only one pole is more like discussing weather than climate. When we average whats going on at both poles, we end up with definitive ice loss. If we then consider glassiers all over the world. The picture is downright grim.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/

oh and the American geophysical union is dominated by petroleum industry geologists that was if I remember right "the" last of the scientific unions to admit the reality of climate shift.

from Wiki

The Register ("El Reg" or "The Reg" to its staff and readers) is a British technology news and opinion website. It was founded by John Lettice (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lettice&action=edit&redlink=1)and Mike Magee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Magee_(journalist)) in 1994 as a newsletter called "Chip Connection", initially as an email service. Mike Magee left The Register in 2001 to startThe Inquirer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inquirer), and later the IT Examiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_Examiner) and then TechEye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechEye).

Also the part about the antarctic ice shelf. A consequence of climate shift is to increase the vapor/humidity content over the antarctic which in turn produces more snow, more snow = more ice. But, the there is still significant melting in many areas of the antarctic due to warming oceans. Another consequence of more snow/ice is to build thicker faster moving masses if on land, and with the warmer waters, release it to the sea faster.

from the article of April 12 2012
interview in Newsvine



Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, said research using an ice-gazing NASA satellite showed that warmer air alone couldn't explain what was happening to Antarctica. A more detailed examination found a chain of events that explained the shrinking ice shelves.
Twenty ice shelves showed signs that they were melting from warm water below. Changes in wind currents pushed that relatively warmer water closer to and beneath the floating ice shelves. The wind change is likely caused by a combination of factors, including natural weather variation, the ozone hole and man-made greenhouse gases, Pritchard said in a phone interview.
As the floating ice shelves melt and thin, that in turn triggers snow and ice on land glaciers to slide down to the floating shelves and eventually into the sea, causing sea level rise, Pritchard said. Thicker floating ice shelves usually keep much of the land snow and ice from shedding to sea, but that's not happening now.
That whole process causes larger and faster sea level rise than simply warmer air melting snow on land-locked glaciers, Pritchard said.
"It means the ice sheets are highly sensitive to relatively subtle changes in climate through the effects of the wind," he said.
What's happening in Antarctica "may have already triggered a period of unstable glacier retreat," the study concludes. If the entire Western Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt — something that would take many decades if not centuries — scientists have estimated it would lift global sea levels by about 16 feet.

pipefitter
06-25-2012, 12:17 PM
"Climate scientists admit that some models overestimated how much the Earth would warm in the past decade. But they say this might just be natural variation in weather, not a disproof of their methods."

Funny now, that none of those regarded as "denialists", could have even told the so-called consensus, that were claiming that the "science was settled", that they might be overestimating 10 years ago.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 12:24 PM
... just one wildfire put more pollutants into the air than all of the cars in California did in an entire year. And in another story a reporter said that one volcano could spew more pollution than all the cars on the planet did in a year. (This was during the Icelandic eruption). So which is it; man made or nature made? or nature with a little push from man? or man made with help from nature? or none of the above?

Why does it have to be just one or the other?

The world is a complex place. Lots of different processes going on at that same time. I know that makes it difficult for some people to comprehend, but that's their problem, not the world's.


What if wildfires and volcano's DO put out those levels of pollutants

Then it probably means we ought not to supplement it by adding much more.

The average person loses about a million skin cells per day due to natural turn-over. This does not mean it's okay to burn off an additional million every day with a blow torch.

"Volcanoes" does not need an apostrophe because it's not possesing anything. Major wildfires are usually followed by a slow, but sustained process of regrowth, often taking decades or even a century that eventually returns the forest to approximately the same condition it was in before the wildefire. That means (over a long enough time period), the effect of the wildfire is actually zero because all of that carbon eventually returns.

Boston
06-25-2012, 12:29 PM
Actually the IPCC has consistently underestimated in most cases where they missed the mark. So your right in that they were wrong, but in most cases there estimates were low, rather than high. Although they did nail many of there predictions right on the head.

A theory's ability to predict is key to its acceptance as a valid working theory, and this particular theory had successfully predicted many many times. To the tune of 98% acceptance at this point. Which is about the largest consensus of any scientific theory. So suggesting the "science" is somehow flawed simply because of one as of yet unpublished work quoted narrowly in an opinion piece written by the same guys who earlier went on to found such literary giants as the inquirer and the examiner, is hardly a reasonable indictment against the science of climate shift.

Its also important to remember that the oil and gas industries motus operandi in the mater of climate shift is the classic agnotology campaign launched originally by the tobacco industry. So its not surprising to find a new paper actually being published "supporting" the concept of Antarctic ice loss and to then immediately have an unpublished opinion piece suggesting the exact opposite. Its classic agnotology actually.

Boston
06-25-2012, 12:35 PM
good point JB
wild fires are basically carbon neutral

ljb5
06-25-2012, 12:37 PM
It appears that the cheeky fellows over at the Register have added a lot of spin and snide comments that don't appear in the original article.

If anyone cares to read it, here it is:

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1212/2012GL051012/

I think the guys at the Register kinda missed the point of the article because they were just hoping to find one or two sentences they could use. The major conclusion seems to be that melting/freezing is a complex process that depends on several different types of water flow. The overall mass balance is barely mentioned.

Boston
06-25-2012, 12:46 PM
I think literary giants covered it

typical of the denial machine to use some small fraction of the truth and then spin it so hard there ends up scientific proof the moon is made of cheese.

unfortunately tho the denial machine is succeeding in confusing the general public who simply aren't into the subject enough to sort it all out before they decide what to believe or not. So things like this end up being posted in places like this and then when people skim through the threads all they read is some wildly inaccurate catch phrase and then move on believing it. Rather than taking the time to sort through it all and discover the original post tittle was substantially flawed

Waddie
06-25-2012, 12:47 PM
ljb5; Why does it have to be just one or the other?

It doesn't..that's what I said by asking what the ratios could be. Read a little more closely next time.


The world is a complex place. Lots of different processes going on at that same time. I know that makes it difficult for some people to comprehend, but that's their problem, not the world's.

Of course the world is a complex place. Even you should know that. And comprehending it is always difficult, despite rumors to the contrary.


"Volcanoes" does not need an apostrophe because it's not possesing anything.

You misspelled possessing.

regards,
Waddie

Boston
06-25-2012, 12:56 PM
if this is a spelling test I'm screwed ;-)

LeeG
06-25-2012, 01:12 PM
RodB, you said "ice shelves" and the article is referencing one 120mile shelf. Is there more than one ice shelf in Antartica?

Iceboy
06-25-2012, 01:14 PM
I think about 43 by the last count.
RodB, you said "ice shelves" and the article is referencing one 120mile shelf. Is there more than one ice shelf in Antartica?

Boston
06-25-2012, 01:19 PM
its a bunch and you'd have to average all of them and then average that with the Arctic ice loss as well as the glacial ice loss to really get a grip on the climate and its effects on ice. Granted some effects are going to be more localized than others, but an overview is essential in order to discuss climate shift, as climate is the study of the entire system and not simply one lone aspect of it. Whats happening in any single area could easily buck the trend but there'd still be that pesky trend.

Waddie
06-25-2012, 01:37 PM
if this is a spelling test I'm screwed ;-)

Me too. :) But when a person starts correcting the grammar of others, they should watch their own spelling....... :) Correcting grammar is a cheap shot any way you look at it, but I never start it.... :)

regards,
Waddie

ljb5
06-25-2012, 02:19 PM
Me too. :) But when a person starts correcting the grammar of others, they should watch their own spelling....... :) Correcting grammar is a cheap shot any way you look at it, but I never start it.... :)

Fair enough. I know my typing isn't perfect. (My spelling is pretty good.) But for some reason, misuse of apostrophes just drives me crazy. It's neither a spelling mistake, nor a typing error. It's an error of thought, rather than an error of expression. But that's my pet peeve, so I don't really care if you heed it or not.

======================================

As to the rest of your argument, I maintain my position. The fact that natural processes occur (wildfires and volcanoes) is not a justification for augmenting it with man-made processes.

It's best to think of these natural processes as part of the baseline --- relatively unchanged for thousands of years. Human activity is an excursion from the baseline. The advent of human-caused carbon emission are relatively new, rising continually, and (unlike most natural processes), show no indication of cyclical behavior. Forests commonly go through cycles of growing and burning, resulting in a overall long-term average carbon content that remains approximately stable (unless deforested by humans.)

Even though you might be able to point to carbon released from a specific forest fire, the wold-wide yearly average remains approximately balanced.

Human activity is not comparable. We regularly and rapidly release millions of tons of carbon that has been sequestered in long-term stores. There is no comparable process that balances that activity. There certainly is no man-made process that sequesters a comparable amount of carbon, so our net contribution is not like steady-state natural processes.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 02:59 PM
By the way, Waddie, I think it's worth mentioning that you're not the first person to ask about the ratio of man-made to natural causes.

It should go without saying that climate researchers have been studying this sort of thing for decades. Anyone who had read the IPCC reports would know that they do contain sections devoted to natural events, specifically volcanoes, wildfires and solar cycles.

There seems to be a great tendency among the anti-science crowd to thing they're the only people who have ever thought of this stuff. Sadly, it doesn't show how clever you are... it just shows how far behind you are on the learning curve.

If you're only considering volcanoes now (and only because you heard a TV reporter mention it), you might not be up to speed on the science.

BrianY
06-25-2012, 03:02 PM
Hey, everyone dies sometime so what if humans contribute to this natural process by killing each other in wars, by committing murder, creating famines, etc. ?

Death, like climate change, is a natural process, right? What's the big deal if human activites speed them along a little...or a lot?

Boston
06-25-2012, 04:59 PM
WRONG
There's nothing natural about whats happening to the climate these days.

the big deal is that its the energy industry deciding for all of us. If you check how fast things changed in the high permian extinction event and compare that to the changes today you end up finding out that today we are changing the atmospheric chemistry about 2000 times faster than in the last best understood major extinction event, in which everything down to a couple pounds died.

its not there decision to make to screw up the entire planet and then just say oops when it snowballs out of control.

the organic carbons appear to have started releasing ( see arctic tundra methane release ) which is what spelled the end of it in the high permian.

It equates to someone committing suicide in such a way as it takes everyone else with them. Personally I'd like to leave the world a bit of a better place for my kids than I found it, rather than vise versa.

PeterSibley
06-25-2012, 06:13 PM
good point JB
wild fires are basically carbon neutral

The whole carbon neutrality thing seems badly understood. The idea that carbon laid down millions of years ago in plant residues being extracted then released into our "now" biosphere seems to confuse a lot of people. Burning something that has grown here in the last 1 or 20 years will have no effect on the CO2 balance in the biosphere. Burning fossil material will.

PeterSibley
06-25-2012, 06:15 PM
Unfortunately a very clear and correct post.


WRONG
There's nothing natural about whats happening to the climate these days.

the big deal is that its the energy industry deciding for all of us. If you check how fast things changed in the high permian extinction event and compare that to the changes today you end up finding out that today we are changing the atmospheric chemistry about 2000 times faster than in the last best understood major extinction event, in which everything down to a couple pounds died.

its not there decision to make to screw up the entire planet and then just say oops when it snowballs out of control.

the organic carbons appear to have started releasing ( see arctic tundra methane release ) which is what spelled the end of it in the high permian.

It equates to someone committing suicide in such a way as it takes everyone else with them. Personally I'd like to leave the world a bit of a better place for my kids than I found it, rather than vise versa.

Phillip Allen
06-25-2012, 06:20 PM
But computer models are? You're missing Waddies point.

wardd is rejecting wadie's point... wardd thinks only what he is told to think... that may sound like an insult but I've been watching and it appears to be close to the actual truth. followers are not generally thinkers

Waddie
06-25-2012, 06:37 PM
ljb5; If you're only considering volcanoes now (and only because you heard a TV reporter mention it), you might not be up to speed on the science.

Nope, I've thought about the whole climate change phenomenon for years. I disagree with Boston that it is the energy companies that are deciding for all of us. They are providing a product; we establish demand. "We have met the enemy, and they are us".

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
06-25-2012, 06:40 PM
I think you will find, Waddie, that desenters must be shouted down... I smell manipulation

Boston
06-25-2012, 07:03 PM
I burn alternative fuels, generally carbon neutral ones. But the thats not because I was offered the option at the pumps, no I had to go and start making my own fuel. The energy industry isn't about to offer us options. Its got a monopoly and its clinging to it with a death grip.

The simple reality is that small biodiesel based fuel system undermine the stranglehold the energy companies have. Even algae based bio diesel systems are a potential threat as the equipment and production is so simple it precludes the oil and gas industries ability to maintain control of it.

So no, we haven't been driving the supply through demand, we've been fed a particular product by the largest monopoly in world history. Standard oil is alive and well.

Or to put it in historical context, if you accidently dig up some otherwise useless black goo and don't know what else to do with it, see if it will light on fire, and then advertise "hey it burns" as if thats all that novel.

Anyway believe what you will, it won't make one hoot of difference either way. We're on a roller coaster ride and doesn't appear that anyones driving.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 07:27 PM
Nope, I've thought about the whole climate change phenomenon for years.

Well, you don't seem to have covered much ground, because you still seem hung up on questions that everyone else addressed years ago.


I disagree with Boston that it is the energy companies that are deciding for all of us. They are providing a product; we establish demand. "We have met the enemy, and they are us".

Some of us more than others.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 07:29 PM
I think you will find, Waddie, that desenters must be shouted down... I smell manipulation

It appears that I'm the only one who actually read the article in question, instead of just the snarky and inaccurate summary at The Register.

Are you contributing to the discussion, or just try to lob bombs at people who you disagree with?

Paul Pless
06-25-2012, 07:38 PM
I know that makes it difficult for some people to comprehend, but that's their problem, not the world's.Yeah, but. . . . . . .those people make decisions on how to consume or preserve resources, and who to vote for, and where to live, and etc. etc. etc, based on their own often erroneous assumptions. The consequences of which are felt by all.

edit to add: those people also breed <dammit>

Paul Pless
06-25-2012, 07:39 PM
I burn alternative fuels, generally carbon neutral ones. But the thats not because I was offered the option at the pumps, no I had to go and start making my own fuel.What fuel do you make and burn that is carbon neutral?

Phillip Allen
06-25-2012, 07:40 PM
It appears that I'm the only one who actually read the article in question, instead of just the snarky and inaccurate summary at The Register.

Are you contributing to the discussion, or just try to lob bombs at people who you disagree with?

shouting again? :)

Boston
06-25-2012, 07:41 PM
not quite the only one who read it, although not until you posted a link

There's a psychology at work here, I liken it to religious beliefs. Some people so hate the reality around them that they prefer to believe in a fantasy. Its called denial. Its a very real psychological condition and its not uncommon. In some psychosis memories are blocked, in others realities are replaced.

When 98% of the scientific community that studies a particular theory agrees with its basic tenants, yet Joe public prefers to believe something else, and passes along any bit of agnotology that discredits even the remotest aspects of the developing science. Its denial. Curious/interesting to observe but frustrating at the same time, cause its the only planet we have, and we're killing it, plain and simple.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 07:51 PM
Yeah, but. . . . . . .those people make decisions on how to consume or preserve resources, and who to for for, and where to live, and etc. etc. etc, based on their own often erroneous assumptions. The consequences of which are felt by all.

Well, I'm not going to argue with that... but I am a little surprised that you would say it.

Some people around here take great pride in their erroneous assumptions. Worse yet, they take their right to vote as if it were validation of their position.

A democracy of two idiots and a wise man does not necessarily function well.

Democracy gives us the right to vote, but it's up to us to make the right votes. For that, we need to be rational and informed.

Paul Pless
06-25-2012, 07:59 PM
not quite the only one who read it, although not until you posted a link

There's a psychology at work here, I liken it to religious beliefs. Some people so hate the reality around them that they prefer to believe in a fantasy. Its called denial. Its a very real psychological condition and its not uncommon. In some psychosis memories are blocked, in others realities are replaced.

When 98% of the scientific community that studies a particular theory agrees with its basic tenants, yet Joe public prefers to believe something else, and passes along any bit of agnotology that discredits even the remotest aspects of the developing science. Its denial. Curious/interesting to observe but frustrating at the same time, cause its the only planet we have, and we're killing it, plain and simple.

Here's what I don't get. Even if one discounts the various theories surrounding AGW; there are still numerous reasons not to continue to burn fossil fuels. Not the least of which include the facts that they are non-renewable, they serve to cause global politics to be unbalanced, and they create pollution which even if unrelated to global warming is deleterious enough in its own right. They cause acid raid, acidification of our oceans and freshwater reserves, smog, release large amounts of particulates and even radioactive material. The various extraction and transport methods create a whole host of their own environmental consequences from oil spills to fly ash containment to fracking's effect on our clean water supply.

leikec
06-25-2012, 08:17 PM
Here's what I don't get. Even if one discounts the various theories surrounding AGW; there are still numerous reasons not to continue to burn fossil fuels. Not the least of which include the facts that they are non-renewable, they serve to cause global politics to be unbalanced, and they create pollution which even if unrelated to global warming is deleterious enough in its own right. They cause acid raid, acidification of our oceans and freshwater reserves, smog, release large amounts of particulates and even radioactive material. The various extraction and transport methods create a whole host of their own environmental consequences from oil spills to fly ash containment to fracking's effect on our clean water supply.


It's amazing how a thing like making money can blunt all of those excellent reasons to do something....


Jeff C

wardd
06-25-2012, 08:18 PM
wardd is rejecting wadie's point... wardd thinks only what he is told to think... that may sound like an insult but I've been watching and it appears to be close to the actual truth. followers are not generally thinkers

prey tell me who is telling me what to think

me thinks you are not very observent

if i find something said by someone that expresses it better than i could then i'm not above using their words but it is not the same as them telling me what to think

my thoughts do get modified by what i read, i call that learning

my point about computer modeling is modeling is the result of a program that hopefully contains the best available science but as with all science it is only science and not religion

you might want to check with hawking about science

Waddie
06-25-2012, 08:19 PM
There will eventually be around 10 billion people inhabiting this planet, IMO, all made possible by cheap, easily accessible fossil fuel. All will want an American middle class lifestyle. How will you meet this demand without fossil fuel? ( Coal, oil, natural gas, etc.). I read that energy demand will double over the next 30 years, despite the economic slowdown. How will you meet this demand without fossil fuels? I'm not trying to be critical, I wish there were a great alternative to fossil fuels, but I just don't see a viable replacement. At least not until the crisis is upon us.......

regards,
Waddie

wardd
06-25-2012, 08:23 PM
Nope, I've thought about the whole climate change phenomenon for years. I disagree with Boston that it is the energy companies that are deciding for all of us. They are providing a product; we establish demand. "We have met the enemy, and they are us".

regards,
Waddie

this is partly true

humanity evolved to follow it's leaders and when the leaders are corrupt it's hard for the average person stand up to them unless a new group of leaders are chosen to follow even if unofficially chosen, all revolutions are this way

human beings are more comfortable acting en mass

Boater14
06-25-2012, 09:23 PM
I'll see you and raise you. Tree hugging, lefty usgs says tides higher from cape hattarass to Boston.

ljb5
06-25-2012, 10:14 PM
There will eventually be around 10 billion people inhabiting this planet, IMO, all made possible by cheap, easily accessible fossil fuel. All will want an American middle class lifestyle. How will you meet this demand without fossil fuel? ( Coal, oil, natural gas, etc.). I read that energy demand will double over the next 30 years, despite the economic slowdown. How will you meet this demand without fossil fuels? I'm not trying to be critical, I wish there were a great alternative to fossil fuels, but I just don't see a viable replacement. At least not until the crisis is upon us.......

Well, that's the problem right there.

If we truly need it, we must stop wasting it.

How will we meet this demand without fossil fuel? Probably with great discomfort and inequity.

Boston
06-25-2012, 10:20 PM
actually its the inequality there desperate to preserve

there's plenty of viable options, and cheap to, but its hard to get people off there asses and actually doing something when its just so easy to drive to a filling station. Hell I'll even be running the furnace off alternative fuels come this winter. And I'll pay pennies on the dollar to do it.

Its not that there aren't tons of alternatives, its just that what industry offers is whats best for them, not for you.

Its not in the corporate interest to act in an altruistic manor, its there job to squeeze as much money as possible out of you, so they invent a system so complex the vast majority of people are fooled into thinking it must be necessary to the production of fuels. When in fact I can produce perfectly good fuel in a 55 g drum using nothing but a scale and a drill with a mixer on it. I spend about five minutes a week collecting waste oil from several of the local eateries and after that its some lye and some methanol. Now is that really all that hard ?

Now throw in the algae based bio system, and you need what, a giant concrete vat and a very fine net, maybe a press, a few pumps and some waste water, add sunshine. We could be doing this on a municipal basis outside every waste water treatment plant with enough room to build a few big fat vats and using human waste to feed the algae. That magic polymer to provide atmospheric CO2 and poof !!! problem solved. At least in terms of and additional CO2, the real issue is getting rid of what we've already added to the atmosphere.

Yup the oil and gas industry has some of us snowed alright, but not quite all of us.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, they're wrecking the planet, on pure greed. Makes me want to puke

varadero
06-26-2012, 01:16 AM
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)

Boston
06-26-2012, 01:28 AM
care to now post the Northers hemisphere sea ice anomalies ? arc_antarc_1979_20091.gif (http://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/arc_antarc_1979_20091.gif)

and then maybe an average of the two ?

from there we can also include glassier trends

we might also discuss ice thickness, something measurements of extent fail to address.

of course there's another way to look at it, ice melts in warmer temps, so we could just look at the trends in average sea and land surface temps.


http://forum.woodenboat.com/webkit-fake-url://F3C7E6ED-BAD5-4D94-96E5-CB3220EF08C8/arc_antarc_1979_20091.gif <------ and that kids is about as close as I've yet to come inserting an image in this thing.

varadero
06-26-2012, 01:35 AM
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif (http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif)

Boston
06-26-2012, 01:45 AM
well hey, a distinct loss of ice overall. And thats not even accounting for thickness. Which isn't part of the extent graphs.

I liked my graph better though, shows the trends very clearly and overlays the data. Something else thats a good way to look at this is ice volume. Which takes extent and thickness into account.

varadero
06-26-2012, 02:25 AM
This is a great animation of the Arctic gyre and the export of sea ice out the Fram strait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOgkbtomiuM&feature=related

varadero
06-26-2012, 06:04 AM
Boston's graph
Bhttp://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/arc_antarc_1979_20091.gif

LeeG
06-26-2012, 06:58 AM
RodB, have you learned anything since the initial c&p?

skuthorp
06-26-2012, 07:09 AM
There's a psychology at work here, I liken it to religious beliefs. Some people so hate the reality around them that they prefer to believe in a fantasy. Its called denial. Its a very real psychological condition and its not uncommon. In some psychosis memories are blocked, in others realities are replaced.

When 98% of the scientific community that studies a particular theory agrees with its basic tenants, yet Joe public prefers to believe something else, and passes along any bit of agnotology that discredits even the remotest aspects of the developing science. Its denial. Curious/interesting to observe but frustrating at the same time, cause its the only planet we have, and we're killing it, plain and simple.
Boston I am of the belief that we, as a species will do nothing at all, at least partly as a result of your proposition, until it is far too late. Then as a species we either adapt, or in the extreme case, largely die out. And it won't just be climate change, overdrawing on the fossil bank, overfishing the seas, desertification, reductions in available arable land will all play their part at a tipping point. But then I am cynic, and not especially concerned about the scenario.

Phillip Allen
06-26-2012, 07:51 AM
Boston I am of the belief that we, as a species will do nothing at all, at least partly as a result of your proposition, until it is far too late. Then as a species we either adapt, or in the extreme case, largely die out. And it won't just be climate change, overdrawing on the fossil bank, overfishing the seas, desertification, reductions in available arable land will all play their part at a tipping point. But then I am cynic, and not especially concerned about the scenario.

similar to my belief

varadero
06-26-2012, 07:59 AM
RodB, have you learned anything since the initial c&p?
His initial c&p has very few flaws. The Antarctic sea ice has seen a positive trend since official measurements have been logged. The Arctic however has seen a decline. The fact that measurements were started at the end of a 40 year cold period (1940-1980) for the Northern hemisphere, and there are historical logs of low ice periods in the Arctic prior suggests to me, and not just me, that we are on the down side of a sine wave cycle where the initial data was measured at a peak. Q, What is the trend of a sine wave? A, Zero, or it depends where you start or finish your measurements. Regardless, the OP and the Data presented are in agreement.

LeeG
06-26-2012, 08:04 AM
Regardless, the OP and the Data presented are in agreement.

"Antartic ice shelves not melting as previously thought", the Antartic ice shelveS weren't thought to be melting.

varadero
06-26-2012, 08:13 AM
Que?

ljb5
06-26-2012, 08:19 AM
suggests to me, and not just me, that we are on the down side of a sine wave cycle where the initial data was measured at a peak. Q, What is the trend of a sine wave? A, Zero, or it depends where you start or finish your measurements.

Nothing more than idle speculation.

What if it's a sine wave superimposed on a downward trend?

What if it's several complicated processes going on at the same time?

Phillip Allen
06-26-2012, 08:38 AM
shouting again...

LeeG
06-26-2012, 08:48 AM
Que?

The Antartic ice shelves weren't thought of as melting, why would anyone think the shelveS were melting when the data doesn't support it? The op article is about ONE 120 mile shelf and a model of it. RodB posted about the Antartic ice shelves in plural. Is that really that hard to figure out?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051012.shtml

The mechanisms by which heat is delivered to Antarctic ice shelves are a major source of uncertainty when assessing the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to climate change. Direct observations of the ice shelf-ocean interaction are extremely scarce, and present ice shelf-ocean models struggle to predict reason able melt rates. Our two years of data during 2010-2012 from three oceanic moorings below the Fimbul Ice Shelf in the eastern Weddell Sea show cold cavity waters, with average temperatures of less than 0.1 {degree sign}C above the surface freezing point.

varadero
06-26-2012, 08:59 AM
From April 25 1939! Boy does this sound familiar.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52305165?searchTerm=iceland%20%20warming&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||fromdd|||fro mmm|||fromyyyy=1921|||todd|||tomm|||toyyyy=1940||| l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||sortby

WILL EARTH GET WARMER? Scientist Has New Theory More than eighteen years of observ- ing the fluctuations of Arctic weather conditions in the fifty-eight Soviet scientific stations in the Far North, writes the Moscow correspondent of the "Observer" (London), lead Rus- sian meteorologists to a forecast of warmer winters and hotter summers for the North and South Poles. They believe that the earth is enter- ing a new cycle of warmer weather. A sceries of curious discoveries have been announced in support of this theory. It has been noted that year by year, for the past two decades, the fringe of the Polar icepack has been creeping northward in the Barents Sea. As compared with the year 1900, the total ice surface of this body of water has decreased by twenty per cent. Various expeditions have discovered that warmth-loving species of fish have migrated in great shoals to waters farther north than they had ever been seen before. Recession of the Barents Sea ice fields have been verified in recent years by numerous vessels of the Soviet mercantile marine plying between Murmansk and Spitzbergen. These phenomena had at one time been attributed to a supposed swerve in the course of the Gulf Stream which had brought an increased volume of warm waters to the Polar basin. Rus- sian scientists are now inclined to cor- relate the changes to the general warming up of the planet. The Gullf Stream theory does not ex- plain the rising temperature of the waters of Baffin Bay and the Bering Straits, according to Soviet experts. It does not seem to account for the fact that the rivers of Norther Siberia freeze over later and thaw earlier than they did two decades ago. Nor does it explain the fact that the zone of Arctic subsoil, which has been rigidly frozen since the Glacial Age, is receding northward in Siberia so that at the city of Mezina it is now forty miles farther north than it was in 1829. There is also the unexplained pheno- menon of the rise in air temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere at Bom- bay, Valparaiso, Buenos Aires, and Cape Town. "Remarkable Changes" "Our generation is living in a period when remarkable changes are taking place almost everywhere throughout the world," writes Professor L. Berg, of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. "'Certainly these widely distributed phenomena cannot be due to the action of the Gulf Stream, which, however, naturally receives its share of the greater general warmth." The slow thawing of the Arctic is given as a partial explanation for the record voyages of Soviet ice-breakers to northern latitudes, which have never before been reached by navigating vessels. The Sadko in 1935, in ice- free water of the North Kara Sea, steamed to 82 degrees, 42 minutes of northern latitude—an all-time record. The Yermak, which at the opening of the century was unable even to penetrate the fringe of ice-fields jam- ming the South Kara Sea, last year sailed northward in the Laptev Sea, turning back only after it had exceed- ed the Sadko mark by twenty-four nautical miles, at 82 degrees, 6 minutes. The general warming of the earth seems also to account for the loosen- ing up of the huge cape of ice on the roof of the world. Floating Laboratory This was shown in the drift of the Papanin Ice-Floe Expedition, which for nearly a year studied Arctic con- ditions from its precarious floating laboratory. The party of four youth- ful scientists in their spectacular drift from the North Pole to the Greenland Sea found that the Polar ice-pack is moving approximately twice as fast as expected from earlier observations. Again, research buoys, dropped into the Kara Sea to study Polar sea cur- rents, indicated a movement to the coast of Greenland and Iceland two to three times more rapid than recorded movements several decades ago. This gradual loosening of the Polar ice-cap has led such Arctic experts as Professor Vise to forecast that the ice- breaker Sedov, now adrift in the Polar ice-pack following a course similar to but more northerly than that of Nansen's Fram, will be carried along much faster than the Fram, shortening the crossing of the Arctic Ocean to a little over two years. 1938 Records The Fram took three years. Pro- fessor Vise believes that the Sedov, which was trapped in the icefields north of the New Siberian Islands more than a year ago, should reach the Greeland Sea by the end of this Fix this text (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/captchaForm?target=ocr&t=1340719198020)
year, carried by the same ocean stream that bore the Papanin party. The strange weather records of 1938 seem to fit the picture of a slowly warming earth. In England, March and December of last year were the warmest of the century during which records have beent kept at Greenwich. In December, Moscow was gripped in a protracted cold spell and tem- peratures fell at times to 50.8 degrees below zero. Centigrade. During the same month, Soviet scientists, winter- ing at the observatory on Rudolf Is- land, 560 miles from the North Pole, reported a temperature well above the

varadero
06-26-2012, 09:02 AM
The map below shows the “2007 record low” Arctic ice extent, and the red dot indicates where a Russian boat sailed to in 1935 – in ice-free water.
Apparently there was less ice in the Eastern Arctic in 1935 than there was during the all-time-record-lowest-Armageddon-we-are-all-doomed-irreversible-tipping-point summer of 2007.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg?w=640 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg)

Boston
06-26-2012, 09:58 AM
Lets keep this in a proper perspective, following the KISS principal as much as posible, we're discussing a poorly written op ed piece from the same guys who brought us the Inquirer, another bastion of factual information

the tittle is misleading, the article is misleading, most likely sensationalized to help sell magazines, or gain converts to the online site. The original article is barely represented and in no way itself definitive being just one of hundreds of pieces of the puzzle.

I particularly liked this one from Lee


"Antartic ice shelves not melting as previously thought", the Antartic ice shelveS weren't thought to be melting.

Its a beautiful example of how far off this article really is.

I'd like to think we can all agree on the basics

the world is warming, and its warming in direct relation to the atmospheric CO2 content nearly exactly as predicted by the estimates of Arrhenius something like 120 years ago. So its not like this is some new fangled science designed to aggravate the republitard agenda.

climate is an average of all weather, in finding that average some areas of study will be warmer, some cooler, overall the trend is warming. Both in the oceans and on land.

So how ethical is it to ignore that climate is an average, ignore that no one ever said that on average the Antarctic ice is melting, and present an op ed piece suggesting that the previous science was flawed.

Its classic agnotology designed to confuse less well informed readers. Nothing more.

Boston
06-26-2012, 10:16 AM
Oh and Voodoo, speculation isn't science, its not data collected in a scientific manor to be compared with actual scientific data, and its certainly not sufficient to prove a thing. So why interject speculation into the science.

this bit about possible oscillations, is suggestive of the "its natural variation" argument, which can be shot down in flames with a quick look at the CO2 data. There is simply no natural deviation even remotely close to the 400 ppm we find ourselves at today, within the record going back about 15 million years. Or well before the advent of humanity.

Also this last about some boat that presumably went about one millimeter farther into the ice pack than what present day data supports possible in open water. A what definitive proof is there this eve occurred and what independent verifiable data exists to support the original claim. What ocean conditions may have been different that could have caused a localized anomaly to allow this possibility. There are just to many variables to be using speculation

If we start using words like If and If we start speculating and if we ignore the scientific process then maybe, if we really want it to, the moon is made of cheese.

ljb5
06-26-2012, 10:17 AM
The map below shows the “2007 record low” Arctic ice extent, and the red dot indicates where a Russian boat sailed to in 1935 – in ice-free water.

What a simple mind it must take to think a little red dot disproves such a mountain of established, peer-reviewed, verified research.

It's been obvious for years that varadero lies, posts false information, misrepresents facts, ignores reputable sources and puts his faith in unreliable sources (Seriously, dude... a blog on Wordpress?!)....

But that's not his real problem.

His real problem is arrogance. What type of person believes to their core that they can over-throw the entire scientific community by just glancing at a graph or reading a single article?

No matter how smart you think you are, varadero, you are not so smart that you can get away without doing the work, understanding the science and dealing with the facts.

I'm sure Phillip will be along shortly to accuse me of arrogance, but that's far from the truth. I never substitute my own hunches for the careful evaluation of true experts.

wardd
06-26-2012, 10:27 AM
The map below shows the “2007 record low” Arctic ice extent, and the red dot indicates where a Russian boat sailed to in 1935 – in ice-free water.
Apparently there was less ice in the Eastern Arctic in 1935 than there was during the all-time-record-lowest-Armageddon-we-are-all-doomed-irreversible-tipping-point summer of 2007.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg?w=640 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg)

was their position checked with gps?

ljb5
06-26-2012, 10:33 AM
was their position checked with gps?

Do not argue with the Red Dot!

The Red Dot came from a blog on WordPress! How could anyone doubt the Red Dot?

ahp
06-26-2012, 11:26 AM
I just skimmed the current issue of "Scientific American" which has an article concerning Antarctic sea ice. It is melting faster. Sea ice tends to block and slow the movement of glaciers towards the coast and berg calving. Glacier movement and berg calving is speeding up.

I invite anyone to read the article and correct me if I have misunderstood.

ccmanuals
06-26-2012, 11:36 AM
My tendency is to trust NOAA.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic

LeeG
06-26-2012, 02:16 PM
But NOAA is the gov't and has heathen scientists working for them. They're hiding the Holy Grail and hemp oil in Area 51.

Boston
06-26-2012, 02:59 PM
Its all just an evil plot ( I've always suspected the ancestors of All Gore started this malarky ) going back to, what was it ? 1750 something like that, when that first gubment official, oh wait, wasn't a US gubment yet, discovered CO2. Might have been around 1820s when CO2 was found to be a greenhouse gas. Or 1890s when it was first calculated what doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere would do to temps.

So really this is one long lived hoax involving generations after generations and thousands of scientists all working there evil to,
to
um
to

um

oh yah
screw up the US economy ;-)

wardd
06-26-2012, 03:36 PM
Its all just an evil plot ( I've always suspected the ancestors of All Gore started this malarky ) going back to, what was it ? 1750 something like that, when that first gubment official, oh wait, wasn't a US gubment yet, discovered CO2. Might have been around 1820s when CO2 was found to be a greenhouse gas. Or 1890s when it was first calculated what doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere would do to temps.

So really this is one long lived hoax involving generations after generations and thousands of scientists all working there evil to,
to
um
to

um

oh yah
screw up the US economy ;-)

that's unpatriotic, only the wealthy are allowed to screw the economy

it's right there in the constitution, ask the supremes

WX
06-26-2012, 04:32 PM
was their position checked with gps?
In 1935?

Phillip Allen
06-26-2012, 05:43 PM
In 1935?
I think his point is that all lats and longs determined before GPS are suspect thereefore the maps don't count unless he wants them to

Boston
06-26-2012, 06:06 PM
mariners have been nailing small islands out in the middle of an incredibly vast ocean for centuries, I have no doubt in the ability of ancient mariners to accurately determine there location. What I do question is myriad of other factors which may have effected the ice in one very small area and over what seems like a very small distance, maybe 100 miles from what I can see in the photo. Could be a shifting current or an eddy, could be a low snow year, or a statistically insignificant anomaly, the list of what's, how's, and why's are endless, so from a scientific point of view, nothing can be concluded from that pairing of data. You'd need thousands of plots just like that one, assuming there is even a corroborated lat and lon for that location at that time. Before you could begin to map the minimum ice extent for that time period.

What we do know, and can track very well is the CO2 content of the past atmosphere. We also know what the past temps were going back quite a way, 1 million years through the ice records so far and counting. Other methods go back even farther. Through those multiple methodologies all agreeing quite well its really clear that CO2 is having exactly the effect expected. The world is warming up just as predicted.

varadero
06-27-2012, 01:43 AM
A piece written by Dr, Walt Meier.

Often, much of the focus in the news is on the effect of warming air temperatures on observed decline in Arctic sea ice extent, such as in the The Economist article (http://www.economist.com/node/21556921). Others have suggested, such as in last Saturday’s post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/), that winds are the key to understanding the extent decline. These are not competing viewpoints, but reflect complementary contributions to changes in sea ice extent. For a full description of how sea ice changes – day-by-day, month-by-month, and over the years and decades – both wind and air temperatures (along with other factors, e.g., the oceans) need to be considered.
Winds and daily variations in extent
Winds primarily affect sea ice extent by pushing ice around, either spreading the ice out over larger area (increasing extent) or compressing it into a smaller area (decreasing extent). Often, day-to-day changes in sea ice extent are primarily due to changes in winds and not freezing or melting. The winds can also open areas of water within the ice-pack, called leads, if they push floes of ice apart. Thus, even during winter, there are open water areas or areas of thin ice (as leads begin to re-freeze) throughout the ice-pack. It is this feature that has allowed submarines to surface at the North Pole since the 1950s, even though the overall sea ice thickness was much greater in the 1950s compared to today. (In other words, surfacing subs at the North Pole are not an indicator of Arctic sea ice conditions.)
Winds and interannual changes in extent
Winds are variable, blowing at different directions and speeds. Thus over time, the effect of the winds settles into an average pattern and their net effect on extent is smaller relative to temperatures. However, average wind patterns can themselves vary over longer periods of time due to large-scale climate oscillations, most notably for the Arctic Oscillation (AO). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the AO was often in a positive mode that favors the motion of older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic. The remaining younger, thinner ice cover was more easily melted completely in the subsequent summers. This contributed to some of the summer extent decline during that period, as was noted in papers by Rigor and Wallace (2004) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019492.shtml) and Rigor et al. (2002) (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C2648%3AROSITT%3E2.0.CO%3B2). However, in recent years, this relationship appears to have broken down. After very strongly negative AO winters in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the summer sea ice again reached low levels (Stroeve et al., 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045662.shtml)).
Winds and summer extent
Even over a season, variation in the winds can play an important role. They were a key factor in the record low extent of 2007, as noted for example by Ogi and Wallace (2012) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051330.shtml) and Zhang et al. (2008) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034005.shtml) , who found that ~30% of the record low extent could be attributed to unusual ice motion (driven by the winds). According to Ogi et al. (2010) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042356.shtml), 50% of the year-to-year variation in extent can be explained by the variation in winds. Ogi and Wallace (2012) noted that if the wind patterns were similar to 2007, the minimum extent during 2010 and 2011 would have likely been as low as or lower than 2007.
Effects of winds and temperature on long-term changes in sea ice
Winds can also influence the long-term trend in extent. Ogi et al. (2010) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042356.shtml) estimated that up to 33% of the trend for 1979-2009 could be explained by winds. One mechanism for this long-term influence is via long-term changes in the winds, which have been noted by Ogi et al. (2010) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042356.shtml) and Smedsrud et al. (2009) (http://www.the-cryosphere.net/5/821/2011/tc-5-821-2011.html). Another effect on extent due to winds is in how effective winds are pushing the ice around. Spreen et al. (2011) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048970.shtml) noted that while some increase in wind speed is observed (in agreement with the Ogi and Smedsrud papers), the speed of the ice increased much more. In other words, the winds are becoming more effective at pushing the ice around.
The motion of sea ice is affected not only by winds (and other smaller factors), but also by the ice itself. Thinner ice is more easily pushed around by the winds than thicker ice (Haas et al., 2008 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034457.shtml)). And the sea ice cover has been getting substantially thinner through the loss of older, thicker ice (e.g., Maslanik et al., 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047735.shtml); Kwok and Rothrock, 2009 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039035.shtml)). Zhang et al. (2008) found that thinner ice cover was a crucial factor in the 2007 ice loss and if the ice pack were thicker, a record low would not have occurred under the same winds. As mentioned above, some of this loss can be ascribed to the positive AO of a couple decades ago. However, since then the AO has been in a mostly neutral or negative mode and yet older ice has continued to be lost. For those interested, a nice animation (http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic) of changes in ice age can be seen at the NOAA Climate Watch website.

Boston
06-27-2012, 01:58 AM
which is pretty much what I said with five fewer paragraphs

so I'm not sure why you post this.

from what I can see, you've posted some very conflicting views on this issue, care to clarify your position here, cause based on what I've seen in this thread so far, there's no telling what your position on this particular subject is.

Personally I think we're screwed, but I tend to actually study the data quite a bit, others may prefer to remain more hopeful and I can appreciate there views, but the deniers, now there's a group I simply can't understand. Seems reasonable to at least face the facts with whatever attitude you prefer, rather than pretend they don't exist.

from my own small perspective what I see is an out of control population emitting mountains of greenhouse gas, with no effective regulations or reservations. Its a free for all till the very end. Now the more optimistic people might argue that maybe, just maybe, we got the life span of CO2 in the environment wrong and we can do something to reduce it, through some as of yet unknown massive application of technology; but my more conservative view, remains skeptical of any earth shattering solutions suddenly presenting themselves.

I give it about half the time the IPCC predicts, say about 2050 somewhere, before we hit that magic 5~6°C doomsday scenario

BrianY
06-27-2012, 02:41 AM
The map below shows the “2007 record low” Arctic ice extent, and the red dot indicates where a Russian boat sailed to in 1935 – in ice-free water.
Apparently there was less ice in the Eastern Arctic in 1935 than there was during the all-time-record-lowest-Armageddon-we-are-all-doomed-irreversible-tipping-point summer of 2007.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg?w=640 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1580-jun-03-23-37.jpg)


Varadero - you really need a lesson on how to interpret what you're looking at. if the pink line represents the typical historical extent of the arctic ice and the white area represents the extent of the ice in 2007, the fact that some guy was able to sail to the red dot in 1935 is totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that the 2007 ice coverage is significantly less than what was typical in the past. Admittedly, one year's data - whether it's the 2007 ice coverage OR the red dot - is not sufficient basis for forming any long term conclusions, but you certainly should be a little concerned by the 2007 data - enough to maybe do further comparisons of recent year's coverage compared to historical averages. That is, if you really are interested in determining the truth of what's going on out there.

varadero
06-27-2012, 05:16 AM
which is pretty much what I said with five fewer paragraphs

so I'm not sure why you post this.

from what I can see, you've posted some very conflicting views on this issue, care to clarify your position here, cause based on what I've seen in this thread so far, there's no telling what your position on this particular subject is.

Personally I think we're screwed, but I tend to actually study the data quite a bit, others may prefer to remain more hopeful and I can appreciate there views, but the deniers, now there's a group I simply can't understand. Seems reasonable to at least face the facts with whatever attitude you prefer, rather than pretend they don't exist.

from my own small perspective what I see is an out of control population emitting mountains of greenhouse gas, with no effective regulations or reservations. Its a free for all till the very end. Now the more optimistic people might argue that maybe, just maybe, we got the life span of CO2 in the environment wrong and we can do something to reduce it, through some as of yet unknown massive application of technology; but my more conservative view, remains skeptical of any earth shattering solutions suddenly presenting themselves.

I give it about half the time the IPCC predicts, say about 2050 somewhere, before we hit that magic 5~6°C doomsday scenario

I am somewhat more optimistic than you, I have to be because there is no way in hell that we can stop the Chinese and the Indians with their runaway development. Back in the 90s I was so convinced by the global warming stuff I was considering selling up down here and moving back to Scotland to take advantage of the new "tropics", The drought was lingering on, the heat in Summer was unbearable, Scotland got beaten in the European cup by England (that was a bad Summer). But, the weather changed back to snow in Winters, wet Springs and Autumns and bearable Summer heat. Now we have had that as our normal for the best part of a decade. I live out in the country 4k from the nearest town, and log daily temps h+l, rain and cloud in my diary, any change at all has been in a downward trend recently. I think one way to make a huge difference is for the USA to turn off the A/C that it seems to be addicted to, and turn the thermostat down on the heating in winter. Untill that happens nothing is going to change. I do not understand why a country that tested over 1000 nuclear weapons in their own backyard has a reluctance to nuclear power (How many times do you have to test a bomb?). I do not understand how Al Gore can be talking about sea level rising, and still buys a beach front property in California. I watch this animation, http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/vid...rare-in-arctic (http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic) and I see a change in the gyre which causes the ice export through the Fram Strait to increase, It is not melting in the Arctic, it is melting outside of the Arctic. If the AO was to go strongly negative for a couple of seasons we would see a recovery. You do not have to buy the answers to the questions if you buy the questions themselves. I truly hope for my childrens sake that you are wrong, because I will say it again, there is no way in hell we can stop the Chinese and the Indians if we cant control our own thermostats.

varadero
06-27-2012, 11:48 AM
Varadero - you really need a lesson on how to interpret what you're looking at. if the pink line represents the typical historical extent of the arctic ice and the white area represents the extent of the ice in 2007, the fact that some guy was able to sail to the red dot in 1935 is totally irrelevant to the obvious fact that the 2007 ice coverage is significantly less than what was typical in the past. Admittedly, one year's data - whether it's the 2007 ice coverage OR the red dot - is not sufficient basis for forming any long term conclusions, but you certainly should be a little concerned by the 2007 data - enough to maybe do further comparisons of recent year's coverage compared to historical averages. That is, if you really are interested in determining the truth of what's going on out there.
Your Historical time line is only 30 years.

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 01:05 PM
Your Historical time line is only 30 years.


And herein lies the rub.

Accurate historical data, whether it be instrument read temps., accurately measured ice pack decrease or increase, even if anecdotal, is too small of a data set to come to any form of an accurate conclusion other than the climate is a very complicated system we are only now beginning to learn how much we really don't know.

The planet is 4.5 BILLION years old. Instrument read temp. readings only go back about 150 years, do the math.

Can anyone here tell us accurately what the daily high/low temp., ave. wind speed, or ice pack depth/extent was on June 21, 1603 anywhere in the Arctic? How about the same day in 1155 on the Ross ice shelf in Antarctica? How about when Alexander the Great was making a charge east into India? What about 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were wiped out? 500 years ago anywhere in the polar regions?

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 04:15 PM
And herein lies the rub.

Accurate historical data, whether it be instrument read temps., accurately measured ice pack decrease or increase, even if anecdotal, is too small of a data set to come to any form of an accurate conclusion other than the climate is a very complicated system we are only now beginning to learn how much we really don't know.

The planet is 4.5 BILLION years old. Instrument read temp. readings only go back about 150 years, do the math.

Can anyone here tell us accurately what the daily high/low temp., ave. wind speed, or ice pack depth/extent was on June 21, 1603 anywhere in the Arctic? How about the same day in 1155 on the Ross ice shelf in Antarctica? How about when Alexander the Great was making a charge east into India? What about 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were wiped out? 500 years ago anywhere in the polar regions?


science does miracles doncha know

WX
06-27-2012, 04:26 PM
Ice cores will give you atmospheric composition for any time you like back to when they first formed.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 04:30 PM
Ice cores will give you atmospheric composition for any time you like back to when they first formed.

composition? what else?

2MeterTroll
06-27-2012, 04:35 PM
boy those poler bears sure are getting brown these days.

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 05:27 PM
Ice cores will give you atmospheric composition for any time you like back to when they first formed.


Can they give us an accurate high and low temp. ( within say 2 degrees) for any day or week during the time the ice was forming?

WX
06-27-2012, 05:46 PM
Here, do some reading, it's good for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 06:02 PM
Here, do some reading, it's good for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

So your answer is no.

Nothing much in your link I haven't already seen before but was reminded by this tidbit that seems to be ignored as much as possible: "..Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#cite_note-1)

Get back to us when you can show accurate temps. for highs and lows of any given week or month beyond 200 years ago for any geologic period and then we'll start having a more enlightening view of what the Co2 story is telling us.

PeterSibley
06-27-2012, 06:11 PM
Ah, you want certainty Rob? That's a problem, how much is certain and how much is a balance of probabilities .

How many of the things we spend money on are to cover certainties? War and defence spending? Insurance ?

What is certain is that the ppm of CO2 has doubled or nearly and methane is starting to bubble up from melting peats. That's a biofeedback loop and I assure you, you can be certain that is a Very Bad Thing.

wardd
06-27-2012, 06:15 PM
Ah, you want certainty Rob? That's a problem, how much is certain and how much is a balance of probabilities .

How many of the things we spend money on are to cover certainties? War and defence spending? Insurance ?

What is certain is that the ppm of CO2 has doubled or nearly and methane is starting to bubble up from melting peats. That's a biofeedback loop and I assure you, you can be certain that is a Very Bad Thing.

these are all natural cycles cause by the alignment of the moons of neptune

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 06:20 PM
Ah, you want certainty Rob? That's a problem, how much is certain and how much is a balance of probabilities .

How many of the things we spend money on are to cover certainties? War and defence spending? Insurance ?


The AGW crowd claims the debate is over. To me that smacks of certainty on their part and yet when I ask a basic question such as the one in post #94 there inevitably seems to be a lot of dirt kicking and beating around the bush but no definitive answer, such as WX above.

Do you think a "balance of probabilities" is a certainty?
Last I heard science doesn't claim a balance of probabilities is some how a fact. It is just that, probabilities. Just like the claim that "consensus" is some how a fact. Again real science doesn't follow that line of logic.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 06:22 PM
The AGW crowd claims the debate is over. To me that smacks of certainty on their part and yet when I ask a basic question such as the one in post #94 there inevitably seems to be a lot of dirt kicking and beating around the bush but no definitive answer, such as WX above.

Do you think a "balance of probabilities" is a certainty?
Last I heard science doesn't claim a balance of probabilities is some how a fact. It is just that, probabilities. Just like the claim that "consensus" is some how a fact. Again real science doesn't follow that line of logic.

lj tells us that it IS a certainty... many others here follow his uncredentialed lead

John Smith
06-27-2012, 06:23 PM
Jeez, Wardd, if you can't trust a TV news reporter who can you trust?

Could they be right? What if wildfires and volcano's DO put out those levels of pollutants?

regards,
Waddie

Does the idea of volcano eruptions pollute the air change the fact that cars do so too?

John Smith
06-27-2012, 06:26 PM
wild fires and volcano's do sporadically put out large amounts of CO2 but they also put out large amounts particulates. the net result is a slight localized cooling effect and no appreciable increase in worldwide CO2. Human activities on the other hand pound out massive amounts of CO2 on a consistently increasing basis. We've recently topped 400 ppm for the first time in about the last 15 million years. So although the denial machine typically quotes this volcano/wildfire thing, in the end its a rather specious argument.

The real problem is that once CO2 is released into the system it takes a very long time for it to be locked down in the form of rock again. So we're kinda stuck with the increases, which are beginning to trigger the organic carbons, not good. Once that happens, its eat drink and be merry time.

I can attest to one fact from personal experience. As a boy I went ice skating all winter every winter on our local ponds. Those ponds have not frozen enough for skating for several decades. I'd call that a definitive trend.

I would then ask, again, what is the downside to moving forward as if Global Warming is an honest threat and what is the upside of moving forward as if it isn't?

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 06:28 PM
"What is certain is that the ppm of CO2 has doubled or nearly and methane is starting to bubble up from melting peats. That's a biofeedback loop and I assure you, you can be certain that is a Very Bad Thing." PeterSibley.

This didn't show up on my computer for PS's quote for some reason but considering the record, or lack thereof i.e. no accurate temp readings before 200 years ago, how do know for a fact that those co2 levels are a " Very Bad Thing"?
Other than computer models and theories, what past instrument read historical record (preferably here on earth) can you show where this doubling of CO2 and methane have caused "very bad thing"s to happen?

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 06:32 PM
I can attest to one fact from personal experience. As a boy I went ice skating all winter every winter on our local ponds. Those ponds have not frozen enough for skating for several decades. I'd call that a definitive trend.

I would then ask, again, what is the downside to moving forward as if Global Warming is an honest threat and what is the upside of moving forward as if it isn't?

Considering the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, two decades is meaningless. Where has it been proven that a warming planet by a few degrees is somehow a threat?

2MeterTroll
06-27-2012, 07:04 PM
Ohh look the glaciers are gone and the sea level in tonga has risen. Whats that big white island out there in the south atlantic?

Give it up folks no matter how much you give them proof or how bad it gets globally deniers wont be convinced. the harder and more illuminating the data the more set they get. so just give up and when the nasties happen dry them off and let them back out into the storm.

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:24 PM
lj tells us that it IS a certainty... many others here follow his uncredentialed lead

verses your credentialed lead

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:26 PM
I can attest to one fact from personal experience. As a boy I went ice skating all winter every winter on our local ponds. Those ponds have not frozen enough for skating for several decades. I'd call that a definitive trend.

I would then ask, again, what is the downside to moving forward as if Global Warming is an honest threat and what is the upside of moving forward as if it isn't?

you just got bigger

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:28 PM
Ohh look the glaciers are gone and the sea level in tonga has risen. Whats that big white island out there in the south atlantic?

Give it up folks no matter how much you give them proof or how bad it gets globally deniers wont be convinced. the harder and more illuminating the data the more set they get. so just give up and when the nasties happen dry them off and let them back out into the storm.


faith good, science bad

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 07:40 PM
Ohh look the glaciers are gone and the sea level in tonga has risen. Whats that big white island out there in the south atlantic?

Give it up folks no matter how much you give them proof or how bad it gets globally deniers wont be convinced. the harder and more illuminating the data the more set they get. so just give up and when the nasties happen dry them off and let them back out into the storm.

Mr. Troll, no one, at least not me is claiming there is no climate change occurring. Calling people "deniers" because they question the validity of the purported evidence of AGW that has obvious holes in it is nothing more than blatant attacks to side step those very questions. You claim there is proof (of AGW?) so show us the temp. data (i.e. actual instrument read temp. of highs and lows, again, accurate to within 2 degs.) over the last 225 million years, a very small cross section of the geologic history of the planet but still enough to show cycles, natural or otherwise.

So throw it up here for us to see.

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:44 PM
Mr. Troll, no one, at least not me is claiming there is no climate change occurring. Calling people "deniers" because they question the validity of the purported evidence of AGW that has obvious holes in it is nothing more than blatant attacks to side step those very questions. You claim there is proof (of AGW?) so show us the temp. data (i.e. actual instrument read temp. of highs and lows, again, accurate to within 2 degs.) over the last 225 million years, a very small cross section of the geologic history of the planet but still enough to show cycles, natural or otherwise.

So throw it up here for us to see.

very accurate temps can be inferred from the fossil record by what was living and where

as an example a couple deg change in temp can greatly affect coral

but never mind carry on

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 07:46 PM
Mr. Troll, no one, at least not me is claiming there is no climate change occurring. Calling people "deniers" because they question the validity of the purported evidence of AGW that has obvious holes in it is nothing more than blatant attacks to side step those very questions. You claim there is proof (of AGW?) so show us the temp. data (i.e. actual instrument read temp. of highs and lows, again, accurate to within 2 degs.) over the last 225 million years, a very small cross section of the geologic history of the planet but still enough to show cycles, natural or otherwise.

So throw it up here for us to see.

to yell denier at anyone is a patently obvious attempt to place that person on the defensive... cheap trick

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 07:46 PM
very accurate temps can be inferred from the fossil record by what was living and where

as an example a couple deg change in temp can greatly affect coral

but never mind carry on

more was requested... numbers please?

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 07:47 PM
very accurate temps can be inferred from the fossil record by what was living and where

as an example a couple deg change in temp can greatly affect coral

but never mind carry on

Please show us what this "inferred" data is and where it is accurate to within 2deg.s F for high and low temps for any given day/week/month/season in the fossil records.

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 07:49 PM
to yell denier at anyone is a patently obvious attempt to place that person on the defensive... cheap trick

Agreed..and not to mention so obvious. Why they practice this is beyond reason.

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:51 PM
more was requested... numbers please?

well philip i'm not a climate scientist or paleontologist though i watch them on tv

you have access to the same info i do but for some unfathomable reason you chose not to accept it

i'll take there word over yours any day, just goes to show how short sighted i am

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 07:55 PM
well philip i'm not a climate scientist or paleontologist though i watch them on tv

you have access to the same info i do but for some unfathomable reason you chose not to accept it

i'll take there word over yours any day, just goes to show how short sighted i am

can't look it up, I see... more likely, you didn't like what you found

well, you're (you would have said 'your') the one who made the claim... produce those numbers

wardd
06-27-2012, 07:55 PM
besides the concept that a mere 7 billion people could adversely affect climate is absurd

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:06 PM
http://climateinfo.org/onlineresources.html

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 08:07 PM
besides the concept that a mere 7 billion people could adversely affect climate is absurd

you seem to be reading what you anticipate my saying and not what I am saying...

back to the data please

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:07 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:08 PM
you seem to be reading what you anticipate my saying and not what I am saying...

back to the data please

i really don't give a hoot what you say as it's mostly inacurate talking points

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 08:11 PM
Still waiting on the numbers.

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:14 PM
Still waiting on the numbers.

i was a tool and die maker, i can give you drill size numbers in decimal inches

for knowledge in other areas i look to the experts, you should try that too

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 08:31 PM
i was a tool and die maker, i can give you drill size numbers in decimal inches

for knowledge in other areas i look to the experts, you should try that too


The truth is wardd even the "experts" can't come up with those numbers because there is no science/tech. at this time that can accurately read what the rocks/mud/ice et al were experiencing back in history on a daily/weekly basis wrt to accurate high and low temp. readings. The "experts" have stated that even an ave. 2 deg. shift can cause world wide calamity yet they can't come with any past history/data( accurate temp. data) to confirm their concerns. They base their "data" on computer models and that is just what they are, computer models, not accurate instrument temp. recorded data.

I'll say it again (and will be more than open to be proven wrong) the planet is over 4.5 billion yrs old and the present data set is too small for anyone to knowingly and honestly claim the debate is over, that AGW is the cause for climate change as defined today.

Just show me the temp.s.

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:38 PM
The truth is wardd even the "experts" can't come up with those numbers because there is no science/tech. at this time that can accurately read what the rocks/mud/ice et al were experiencing back in history on a daily/weekly basis wrt to accurate high and low temp. readings. The "experts" have stated that even an ave. 2 deg. shift can cause world wide calamity yet they can't come with any past history/data( accurate temp. data) to confirm their concerns. They base their "data" on computer models and that is just what they are, computer models, not accurate instrument temp. recorded data.

I'll say it again (and will be more than open to be proven wrong) the planet is over 4.5 billion yrs old and the present data set is too small for anyone to knowingly and honestly claim the debate is over, that AGW is the cause for climate change as defined today.

Just show me the temp.s.

what you are asking for is absurd and impossible

a hot day doesn't prove gw/climate change but changing atmospheric and temps over a span of time indicate a trend and currently that trend is up and up higher than can be accounted for by natural causes

if you want specific numbers go talk to an expert or follow some of the links i posted

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 08:54 PM
i really don't give a hoot what you say as it's mostly inacurate talking points

I knew you weren't able to listen...

wardd
06-27-2012, 08:57 PM
I knew you weren't able lto listen...

i see what you say, it just doesn't make much if any sense

history and science aren't on your side

MiddleAgesMan
06-27-2012, 08:59 PM
Good luck dealing with the idiots, Ward.

It's my bedtime.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 09:07 PM
i see what you say, it just doesn't make much if any sense

history and science aren't on your side

there's lots of animals for whom it would not be understandable...

ljb5
06-27-2012, 09:11 PM
The truth is wardd even the "experts" can't come up with those numbers because there is no science/tech. at this time that can accurately read what the rocks/mud/ice et al were experiencing back in history on a daily/weekly basis wrt to accurate high and low temp. readings.

This is a fallacy known as "moving the goal posts."

If we could measure annual high and low temperatures over the last 25 million years, you would complain that we can't measure them monthly. If we could do it monthly, you'd complain that we can't do it weekly. If we could do it weekly, you'd complain that we can't do it daily. If we could do it daily, you'd complain that we can't do it hourly. If we could do it hourly, you'd complain that we can't do it by the minute.

Instead of focusing on the unknowns, (and constructing ridiculous and impossible requirements), think instead of reality. What do we know? How can we use what we know to advance our understanding, not merely to complain about it.

In any field of study, there are an infinite number of unknowns. If I observe an avalanche slide down a mountain, there is no possible way I can tell you which snowflake came from where..... but I know for damn sure they didn't slide up the mountain! How can I have such certain knowledge in such a world of uncertainties?

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 09:17 PM
This is a fallacy known as "moving the goal posts."

If we could measure annual high and low temperatures over the last 25 million years, you would complain that we can't measure them monthly. If we could do it monthly, you'd complain that we can't do it weekly. If we could do it weekly, you'd complain that we can't do it daily. If we could do it daily, you'd complain that we can't do it hourly. If we could do it hourly, you'd complain that we can't do it by the minute.

Instead of focusing on the unknowns, (and constructing ridiculous and impossible requirements), think instead of reality. What do we know? How can we use what we know to advance our understanding, not merely to complain about it.

In any field of study, there are an infinite number of unknowns. If I observe an avalanche slide down a mountain, there is no possible way I can tell you which snowflake came from where..... but I know for damn sure they didn't slide up the mountain! How can I have such certain knowledge in such a world of uncertainties?

try us

ljb5
06-27-2012, 09:26 PM
try us

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If you're unwilling to look at the data that exists, you have no right to demand data that doesn't.

If you were of a scientific mind and an industrious nature, you might set yourself on the task of trying to figure out how to collect the data that you seek.

So much good science has been done by people who asked, "How can I fill in this unknown?" Very little has been done by people who never set out to learn anything.

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 09:30 PM
so, you admit that the data does not exist... thank byou, it's was about time

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 09:32 PM
what you are asking for is absurd and impossible

a hot day doesn't prove gw/climate change but changing atmospheric and temps over a span of time indicate a trend and currently that trend is up and up higher than can be accounted for by natural causes

if you want specific numbers go talk to an expert or follow some of the links i posted

Asking for hard data with proven numbers is hardly absurd. Claiming so shows either a lack of basic intelligence or deceitful debating tactics trying to side step the fact you don't HAVE the facts.

In order to understand trends with any form of accuracy you need hard data to even show what the trend is. As far as "than can be accounted for by natural causes" this is truly grasping for straws considering your first statement. I would advise you stop digging. You're only making the hole deeper.

wardd
06-27-2012, 09:35 PM
i want someone to prove the easter bunny doesn't exist

ljb5
06-27-2012, 09:35 PM
so, you admit that the data does not exist... thank byou, it's was about time

When hiking in the mountains last weekend, I saw a boulder lying at the base of a cliff.

I have no idea when it fell, or from where.

But I know for damn sure it it didn't float up there from the bottom of the valley.

This is the difference between knowing a detail and understanding a situation.

I do not know where it fell from, but I understand how falling works. Got it?

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 09:38 PM
When hiking in the mountains last weekend, I saw a boulder lying at the base of a cliff.

I have no idea when it fell, or from where.

But I know for damn sure it it didn't float up there from the bottom of the valley.

This is the difference between knowing a detail and understanding a situation.

I do not know where it fell from, but I understand how falling works. Got it?

not related at all... shuck and jive again

Boston
06-27-2012, 09:38 PM
variability in ice core fern levels are between 2k and 7k years, depending on numerous factors. Its simply not possible to marry the data between temp ( taken from the water component ) and gas content ( taken from fossil atmospheric pockets ) to an accuracy of greater than that variability.

you guys gotta leave off wikipedia and open up some science journals

Also
simply because there is nothing we can do about someone elses pollution doesn't mean its not having an effect. Oh and taking local temp readings means very little to a discussion about climate as local readings are considered weather monitoring at best.

Cheers
B

BLues night
Gotta go

wardd
06-27-2012, 09:39 PM
no, he doesn't

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 09:43 PM
variability in ice core fern levels are between 2k and 7k years, depending on numerous factors. Its simply not possible to marry the data between temp ( taken from the water component ) and gas content ( taken from fossil atmospheric pockets ) to an accuracy of greater than that variability.

you guys gotta leave off wikipedia and open up some science journals

Also
simply because there is nothing we can do about someone elses pollution doesn't mean its not having an effect. Oh and taking local temp readings means very little to a discussion about climate as local readings are considered weather monitoring at best.

Cheers
B

BLues night
Gotta go

If "local readings are considered weather monitoring at best." then why does the IPCC, NASA, NCAR, UN et al depend on those very same local temp. data sets to claim global temp. rise and fall?

wardd
06-27-2012, 09:45 PM
If "local readings are considered weather monitoring at best." then why does the IPCC, NASA, NCAR, UN et al depend on those very same local temp. data sets to claim global temp. rise and fall?

could they be averaging all the sets globally?

Phillip Allen
06-27-2012, 09:46 PM
gonna be a shuck and jive night... :)

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 10:35 PM
gonna be a shuck and jive night... :)

MAYaannn, no kidding! Enough to make Walter Payton blush.

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 10:37 PM
could they be averaging all the sets globally?

Gee wardd, ya think?
They still need THE NUMBERS to find the average. And those numbers are only good for the data set/time scale they came from.

ljb5
06-27-2012, 10:47 PM
Gee wardd, ya think?
They still need THE NUMBERS to find the average. And those numbers are only good for the data set/time scale they came from.

The field of research you are interested in is called "paleoclimatology."

You can read a little about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record), but I caution you to not consider yourself an expert on the subject after reading just the Wiki page.

Hopefully, it might ignite an interest in you to learn more.

Dendtroclimatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology) is the study of temperature records by using information encoded in tree rings and other things that were alive at the time and respond to temperature in (roughly) predictable ways.

The Geologic temperature record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record) is studied by looking at changes to the nucleus of specific atoms that behave in predictable ways over time.


Information is all around you. It is literally in the trees and rocks and mountains and glaciers all over the world. Intrepid men and women of intellect and curiosity seek it out. Pathetic, scared people sit at home and shrink from it.

2MeterTroll
06-27-2012, 10:48 PM
Rod OK i'll tell you how we know its human caused. We can calculate the number of barrels of oil and tones of coal and amount of wood smoke from the destruction of the forests. we have numbers for the amount of degradation of our planet. we can see that nothing since the death of the dinos has hit the earth as hard as a bunch of monkeys with heavy equipment.

In reality as much proof as is needed to make every challenge to human caused global climate change fail. the only resin climate science has stopped bothering with the human part is, its better to be inaccurate than doom the human race by laying blame. Tootles

2MeterTroll
06-27-2012, 11:01 PM
didnt yell it and was not trying to do any tricks. its simple PA I have been down this argument lane with you before, I have shown you the numbers, I have shown how the numbers where generated, in fact Every thing you and Rod are asking has been shown more than once. you wont change your views and i no longer care if you do. when the **** hits the fan for you i will be there to hand you a towel or what ever you need, but i am done shedding tears for the willfully ignorant. I will be getting paid the same wether i drag your skinny ass out of the flood or if i drag some bangalis ass out.


to yell denier at anyone is a patently obvious attempt to place that person on the defensive... cheap trick

skipper68
06-27-2012, 11:01 PM
That is all "BS" Be the answer. The world is at your finger tips.Eduction works UGHH .r<

WX
06-27-2012, 11:08 PM
variability in ice core fern levels are between 2k and 7k years, depending on numerous factors. Its simply not possible to marry the data between temp ( taken from the water component ) and gas content ( taken from fossil atmospheric pockets ) to an accuracy of greater than that variability.

you guys gotta leave off wikipedia and open up some science journals

Also
simply because there is nothing we can do about someone elses pollution doesn't mean its not having an effect. Oh and taking local temp readings means very little to a discussion about climate as local readings are considered weather monitoring at best.

Cheers
B

BLues night
Gotta go
Tasmania is seeing increases in water temp by as much as 2.5 degrees C. There are species migrations taking place that are altering the local ecology. That is one example.

skipper68
06-27-2012, 11:23 PM
Perma frost is expelling tons of methane. Add to cows and Pabst draft drinkers. EEKK! :O

RodSBT
06-27-2012, 11:30 PM
The field of research you are interested in is called "paleoclimatology."

You can read a little about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record), but I caution you to not consider yourself an expert on the subject after reading just the Wiki page.

Hopefully, it might ignite an interest in you to learn more.

Dendtroclimatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology) is the study of temperature records by using information encoded in tree rings and other things that were alive at the time and respond to temperature in (roughly) predictable ways.

The Geologic temperature record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record) is studied by looking at changes to the nucleus of specific atoms that behave in predictable ways over time.


Information is all around you. It is literally in the trees and rocks and mountains and glaciers all over the world. Intrepid men and women of intellect and curiosity seek it out. Pathetic, scared people sit at home and shrink from it.

Yep. Familiar with the tree rings, the geo. temp record etc. and yes, the info is very interesting to say the least, they obviously show trends and no, I don't consider myself an expert, never have. But those areas of study don't have an accuracy of single digit temps. which has been the siren song of the AGW crowd for some time. I remember very clearly during my climatology class way back in the early eighties our enlightened professor pining over the possibility of serious consequences to our planet if the climate temp ave. climbed even 1 deg. F. This, less than a decade after the cry by the science community that we would be engulfed by the next ice age in short order.

Here is an interesting point from the geo. page:

"...the earliest part of the Eocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene) period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_period), a series of abrupt thermal spikes have been observed, lasting no more than a few 100,000 years. The most pronounced of these, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) (PETM) is visible in the figure at right. These are usually interpreted as caused by abrupt releases of methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) from clathrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrates) (frozen methane ices that accumulate at the bottom of the ocean), though some scientists dispute that methane would be sufficient to cause the observed changes[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. During these events, temperatures in the Arctic Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean) may have reached levels more typically associated with modern temperate (i.e. mid-latitude) oceans."

And this from the tree ring page:

"..The divergence problem is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer) (instrumental temperatures) on one side, and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood density or width of tree rings on the other side, at many treeline sites in northern forests.

While the thermometer records indicate a substantial warming trend, tree rings from these particular sites do not display a corresponding change in their maximum latewood density or, in some cases, their width. This does not apply to all such studies.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology#cite_note-Darrigo-1) Where this applies, a temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming. The temperature graphs calculated from instrumental temperatures and from these tree ring proxies thus "diverge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverge)" from one another since the 1950s, which is the origin of the term. This divergence raises obvious questions of whether other, unrecognized divergences have occurred in the past, prior to the era of thermometers. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology#cite_note-2) There is evidence suggesting that the divergence is caused by human activities, and so confined to the recent past, but use of affected proxies can lead to overestimation of past temperatures, understating the current warming trend. There is continuing research into explanations and ways to avoid this problem with tree ring proxies.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology#cite_note-Darrigo-1)



Doesn't look to me like the debate is over.
As to "Pathetic, scared people sit at home and shrink from it." This sounds like a personal problem you might want to keep to yourself.

skipper68
06-27-2012, 11:34 PM
Great post. Why are they not trying to capture this? No storage?

ljb5
06-27-2012, 11:39 PM
Doesn't look to me like the debate is over.

In science, the opportunity for learning never ends.

However, this does not mean that we have learned nothing and the field has not advanced.

We can still debate gravity.... but I would caution you not to doubt it.

Scientists tell us that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion 17 million years ago. Yet no one was there to observe it. There are no measurements of water flow for each day of the last 17 million years.

Obviously, the record is incomplete.

Do you doubt the formation of the Grand Canyon?

Or do you only doubt science when it's politically expedient for you?

skipper68
06-27-2012, 11:53 PM
Wrong, Now they say the Grand Canyon was an earthquake. Not erosion.Science..Sigh...

varadero
06-28-2012, 12:18 AM
How Was the Canyon Made?

Scientists cannot be completely sure how the canyon was created and there are still theories evolving, but they do have a very educated guess. Erosion is what most target as the main contributor to the creation of the Grand Canyon. This was caused mostly by water, ice and wind, however; continental drift, weather and climate changes, and even volcanoes were also contributing factors to the formation of the Grand Canyon. Most scientists agree that the largest component in the creation of the canyon was water and the path of the Colorado River. Water is one of the most powerful forces on Earth, with the ability to build and destroy.
The first contributor in granting water the ideal components to complete such a great feat as carving out the Grand Canyon was the Laramide orogeny, which also formed the Rocky Mountains. This event occurred 75 million years ago and caused an estimated 10,000 ft. (3,000 m.) of uplift, which granted the Colorado River a steeper slope to carve its way into the four plateaus that make up this area. A river alone with its steady ebb and flow could not carve out a canyon so massive without a little help from Mother Nature.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/UserFiles/Image/GC%20SR/SR9011%20GC%20Colorado%20River%20for%20web.jpghttp ://www.grandcanyonlodges.com/geology-5451.html

PeterSibley
06-28-2012, 12:50 AM
The AGW crowd claims the debate is over. To me that smacks of certainty on their part and yet when I ask a basic question such as the one in post #94 there inevitably seems to be a lot of dirt kicking and beating around the bush but no definitive answer, such as WX above.

Do you think a "balance of probabilities" is a certainty?
Last I heard science doesn't claim a balance of probabilities is some how a fact. It is just that, probabilities. Just like the claim that "consensus" is some how a fact. Again real science doesn't follow that line of logic.

You will very rarely hear a scientist tell you something is completely understood or settled, leave that to politicians, but the balance of probabilities I mentioned is very high, 95% would be my guess .

If a defence planner saw a 95% chance of an invasion do you think he would be continuing the "debate" or preparing ? Your call.

skipper68
06-28-2012, 01:00 AM
How Was the Canyon Made?

Scientists cannot be completely sure how the canyon was created and there are still theories evolving, but they do have a very educated guess. Erosion is what most target as the main contributor to the creation of the Grand Canyon. This was caused mostly by water, ice and wind, however; continental drift, weather and climate changes, and even volcanoes were also contributing factors to the formation of the Grand Canyon. Most scientists agree that the largest component in the creation of the canyon was water and the path of the Colorado River. Water is one of the most powerful forces on Earth, with the ability to build and destroy.
The first contributor in granting water the ideal components to complete such a great feat as carving out the Grand Canyon was the Laramide orogeny, which also formed the Rocky Mountains. This event occurred 75 million years ago and caused an estimated 10,000 ft. (3,000 m.) of uplift, which granted the Colorado River a steeper slope to carve its way into the four plateaus that make up this area. A river alone with its steady ebb and flow could not carve out a canyon so massive without a little help from Mother Nature.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/UserFiles/Image/GC%20SR/SR9011%20GC%20Colorado%20River%20for%20web.jpghttp ://www.grandcanyonlodges.com/geology-5451.htmlThanks for the link. Amazing as it is, water and wind loses the theory. Imagine the power, while you are there or look at the amazing crevice. Yellow Stone, with the giant volcano help? Maybe.

varadero
06-28-2012, 01:32 AM
“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”
― Bertrand Russell (http://forum.woodenboat.com/author/show/17854.Bertrand_Russell)

Phillip Allen
06-28-2012, 07:42 AM
“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”
― Bertrand Russell (http://forum.woodenboat.com/author/show/17854.Bertrand_Russell)

got it! I agree

Keith Wilson
06-28-2012, 07:52 AM
Do you think a "balance of probabilities" is a certainty? Red herring. The only things about which we are certain (beyond the possibility of any error or revision as we learn more) are deductions in closed systems like mathematics, where we control the assumptions. We're only human, and we know almost nothing for dead certain. Yet we must decide what to do anyway.

The evidence for 'AGW' is very good, good enough to act on.

That radical left-wing socialist rag, The Economist, recently has an excellent series on the subject. You can read it starting here. (http://www.economist.com/node/21556798) They think AGW is as settled as anything in this uncertain world.

MiddleAgesMan
06-28-2012, 08:01 AM
The latest on how the Grand Canyon was created posits a large lake some distance away breaching a critical wall/mound/border, sending a huge rush of water downstream, totally emptying the lake. Researchers have located the former lake bed which has bolstered their theory.

So the Canyon was created by moving water but over a relatively short period of time, not thousands of years.

ljb5
06-28-2012, 08:28 AM
“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”
― Bertrand Russell (http://forum.woodenboat.com/author/show/17854.Bertrand_Russell)

Everyone has uncertainty. The distinguishing factor is how they deal with it.

Some deal with uncertainty by dedicating their careers to seeking information, learning from others, testing ideas and finding facts.

Others deal with uncertainty by spending two minutes reading an article on some right-wing blog and then assume they know more then everyone else.

Which type are you?

Phillip Allen
06-28-2012, 08:31 AM
shuck and jive

Boston
06-28-2012, 10:21 AM
If "local readings are considered weather monitoring at best." then why does the IPCC, NASA, NCAR, UN et al depend on those very same local temp. data sets to claim global temp. rise and fall?


the answer to your question is tied to understanding the difference between weather and climate.

its difficult to predict weather because of edge effects. Climate on the other hand is an average of all weather and doesn't have edge effects, its got things like Milankovitch cycles and polar oscillations and radiation.

Another way to think about it is in terms of energy, climate is the systems response to the total energy in vs the total energy out. Weather is the interaction of the uneven energy distribution within the system.

The agencies you mention above use weather data to calculate various elements of climate, but no individual local weather condition can be considered to represent climate, the key word in there is "local". Sometimes climate specialists keep track of a certain area, like the poles, because thats where alterations in the atmospheric chemistry effect climate most. So by following some large areas of the system, oceans, land mass, poles, climate scientists can break down the effects of the increasing levels of CO2 and CH4

Denver hit its record all time high temp, two days in a row earlier this week, but I wouldn't say that was climate, its weather, If I average all those temps across the world together then I'm into the realm of climate. But following a daily temp record from just one station or private monitor falls into the category of weather

Its actually a very important distinction because of those edge effects I mention earlier. Energy is an interesting element of the climate system, areas of greater energy can combine to form sever weather patterns and small localized anomalies which may express themselves as extremes in either direction, cold or hot. So its important to use an average of these events to determine the trend. Which is why I asked an earlier poster to include the Arctic ice data if we are going to be discussing climate and its relation to Antarctic ice data.

In the end the effects of increasing CO2 levels on the climate were first calculated in the late 1800s and those original estimates have proven to be extremely accurate. So its long been possible to accurately calculate what the systems response to increasing levels of greenhouse gasses will be. The energy industry's response to these simple facts is to pound out disinformation at an astounding rate in an effort to confuse the public that the science isn't clear. I say BS, the science is extremely clear and what's being studied isn't "if" there's a response to additional greenhouse gasses but "how bad is it" and "is it following projected development". Answer is, its bad, and, sure is.

PeterSibley
07-01-2012, 12:49 AM
You will very rarely hear a scientist tell you something is completely understood or settled, leave that to politicians, but the balance of probabilities I mentioned is very high, 95% would be my guess .

If a defence planner saw a 95% chance of an invasion do you think he would be continuing the "debate" or preparing ? Your call.

Rod never replied to this, frankly I'd be interested in his opinion .