Not to quibble, but I'm fairly sure it's "wakey wakey hand off snakey"
I was suggesting more of a renal alleviatory action brought on by an overly distended bladder than anything related to self congratulatory adulation of the one handed kind.
"Recent computations ( e.g. Vinnikov, 1999 ) closely duplicate the onserved reduction of the mean annual ice extent.
Explain what away?
That the models work in simulating the ice retreat both qualitatively and quantitatively?
Quote:
However, close inspection reveals disturbing discrepancy: Models show impacts in winter and observations show ice retreat in summer. As we expect from basic physical reasoning, the largest effects of greenhouse warming should be seen in the absence of solar radiation when thermal infrared radiation dominates the surface energy balanc. ie in winter.
Or in the Arctics. Where it is actually observed.
Aqua, I have worked in the field of data modeling (albeit in biology). I know exactly how hard it is to reduce the degrees of freedom in your simulations down from several hundret to a couple to get meaningful results. If they predicted the current ice retreat in '99, they are really, really good.
His call was simply to refine the simulations even more - this will need to be done over the next 50 years because no simulation can ever be perfect. Using this to challenge the model is weak and intellectually sterile because if we are observing a greenhouse and do nothing until the simulations are perfect, it will be a runaway greenhouse until we mover our fat asses. Talk about the frog and the slowly warming water.
if we are observing a greenhouse and do nothing until the simulations are perfect, it will be a runaway greenhouse until we mover our fat asses. Talk about the frog and the slowly warming water.
Smircle, I really appreciate how difficult modelling is..having done it in my Botany degree days as well as later in statistical number crunching for my Master's degree in Ed Psych. ( all before the benefit of computers I might add...tough yakka indeed )
But difficult or not the bone of contention is as I stated.
I pour over data, compare models, scour magazines and keep posted via news updates on the web.. As I am sure you do.
We have different view points..
I know your open minded so take a look at this article and tell me what you think of their position regarding Co2 & Arctic ice cycles.
I know your open minded so take a look at this article and tell me what you think of their position regarding Co2 & Arctic ice cycles.
Problematic, at the very least.
They obviously have a problem as recent findings do not support their view:
Quote:
In a recent study, Serreze et al. (2003) analyzed the history of satellite passive microwave sea ice records (...) The results of their analysis showed a general downward trend in Arctic sea ice "during the passive microwave era" that culminated with record minimums for both sea ice extent and area in 2002
So, they take this quote and try to shoot it down (of course with older data which is more convenient).
As a counter-argument, they present the study "Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming." (http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_artic.../2002GL016406/). Their description of the study reads as following:
Quote:
A long succession of climate models has consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming should be significantly amplified in earth's polar regions (...) Long-term temperature records, however, tell a vastly different story.
Vastly different? Let's look at the study instead of their opinion on it:
Arctic temperature deviation in green, northern hemisphere in red. Do we see two marked trends here?
In assessing the studies, they did not technically lie, they just skewed the facts.
It is true that the second study did not find a significant difference between the trends of the red and green plot, BUT to infer that the first study is not to be trusted or no clear trend is visible is just plain wrong.
This second study states:
Quote:
Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variablity had little net effect on computed trends) are similar,
The first study says:
Quote:
The sea ice trend is part of a larger pattern of recent Arctic change, which includes pronounced warming over sub-Arctic land areas and the Arctic Ocean, warming and increased extent of the Arctic Ocean's Atlantic layer, reductions in winter sea level pressure (SLP) and positive trends in winter indices of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (...) Time series of the AO and NAO are similar and there is debate whether they are separate atmospheric modes.
Yep, you get that right, both studies tell you
- there is a trend
- it has the same direction over the Arctic and northern hemisphere.
Their conclusion is then:
Quote:
In light of the results of these several analyses, the next time you hear people getting excited about Arctic sea ice thinning or the Greenland Ice Sheet shrinking, tell them to check back in a decade or two; for there's a lot of natural variability to be overcome before we can be sure of anything even remotely related to potential impacts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the Arctic.
Hey, they conveniently forgot to mention there is a clear trend underlying the fluctuations and this trend is not limited to the Arctics. The "natural variability" is about +/-0.01 in the image above, the trend is around +0.05.
What is more (and the second cited study is to blame here, too) is that the proposed "oscillations" are not cyclic. We see one downturn, one upswing and then the trend is nearly linear. This is technically an oscillation, but there is no indication that it is going to repeat. Ever.
You must have spent half a day doing the counter research.. While I went surfing...
In a nutshell then, the whole matter hinges in whether it is truly a cycical event or not.
As you acknowledge the evidence "technically" shows the hallmarks of it being an oscillatory event ( as they put it ). It may or may not repeat. I grant you that. But in fairness even you cannot totally dismiss the possibility of it being a recurring event either.
Second point with reference to the +0.05 degree "rise" (and this we have gone over before ), but I remind you that many meteorologists are dubious given the location of the vast majority of their recording devices: ie inner cites and other areas located near localised industrial zones.
Third point...Greenland is experiencing an increase in snow cover and the average temperature has been dropping for a number of years. Greenland is also much closer to Europe than the North pole and is also surrounded by oceanic currents that include the Arctic circumular current. By all accounts Greenland should be warming not cooling.
Can you explain it ?
Ps I am certainly old enough to remember the enviromental protagonists of the 70's proclaim a very real ice age was about to be heralded...
Well guess what ? Yep..the stirrings of this band of devotees is back...
You might enjoy reading this. From " The Guardian" no less...
As you acknowledge the evidence "technically" shows the hallmarks of it being an oscillatory event ( as they put it ). It may or may not repeat. I grant you that. But in fairness even you cannot totally dismiss the possibility of it being a recurring event either.
Occam's razor. Look at the graph again and tell me if you see a cyclic oscillation or one leading to a linear trend:
20 out of 120 years, we have temperatures below average, 100 out of 120 they are above. No prove?
Not to be nitpicking, but no trend in a natural system lasts forever, at some point it will reach equilibrium or oscillate back. What matters is if it goes beyond the current boundaries and (in the case of the global weather) how costly the results are. AFAIK noone believes global warming will lead to combustion, but that does not tell you all is well.
Quote:
Second point with reference to the +0.05 degree "rise" (and this we have gone over before ), but I remind you that many meteorologists are dubious given the location of the vast majority of their recording devices: ie inner cites and other areas located near localised industrial zones.
The green data in the graph above stems from Greenland and other polar regions. To repeat it:
no huge cities there.
Quote:
Third point...Greenland is experiencing an increase in snow cover and the average temperature has been dropping for a number of years. Greenland is also much closer to Europe than the North pole and is also surrounded by oceanic currents that include the Arctic circumular current. By all accounts Greenland should be warming not cooling.
Can you explain it ?
Easy enough, it is warming and the ice is not increasing:
Quote:
The total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet for 2002 broke all known records for the island and the extent of Arctic sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, according to scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder.(...)
Steffen's analyses with graduate student Russel Huff show a dramatically higher melting trend since 1979 that appears only to have been interrupted once -- in 1991 -- when the Philippines' Mt. Pinatubo erupted.
A NASA study of Greenland's ice sheet reveals that it is rapidly thinning.(..)
For the first time, we are seeing evidence that one of the two great ice bodies on the Earth (the other is the Antarctic ice sheet) is contributing, in a modest fashion, to observed sea level rise
The Arctic's Greenland Ice Sheet -- the largest mass of land-based ice outside of Antarctica, with 8 percent of the world's ice -- has thinned more than a meter per year on average since 1993 along parts of its southern and eastern edges.
There is some localized thickening, but the grand total is negative. (Of course, our friends at the industry-sponsored co2science.org-site twist the facts about localized thickening to make it appear the overall trend was a thickening - rather sickening ).
Quote:
Just when everyone is largely settled in their prognostications, someone one has to come along and rock the boat...
So, if for instance one part of the world warms 10° and another gets 10° colder, no climate change has happened?
If a model predicts cooling in Europe because the gulf stream breaks down and heating in the subtropics because of greenhouse gases, the model is contradictory and therefore worthles?
Yeah that's really conclusive. You might want to run for US presidency... Do away with all those annoying facts and stick to a healthy critizism, no matter what. After all, they can't point a gun to your head to make you believe.
So, if for instance one part of the world warms 10? and another gets 10? colder, no climate change has happened?
If a model predicts cooling in Europe because the gulf stream breaks down and heating in the subtropics because of greenhouse gases, the model is contradictory and therefore worthles?
Yeah that's really conclusive.
You might want to run for US presidency... Do away with all those annoying facts and stick to a healthy critizism, no matter what. After all, they can't point a gun to your head to make you believe.
Now I know the meaning of "Mad"Scientist. hehe
Smircle launching into a personal attack is not called for man. I haven't shown you any disrespect have I ?
I merely posted the Ice age link to hear your opinion on it.. It is Not my opinion OK...Sheesh.
Smircle launching into a personal attack is not called for man. I haven't shown you any disrespect have I ?
I merely posted the Ice age link to hear your opinion on it.. It is Not my opinion OK...Sheesh.
Well, I get more and more the impression that you have resorted to trolling me. It is fine with me to explain this and that and that. But repeating statements over and over again (like the big-cities-argument) and not checking your assumptions (the greenland ice thickening) gives me a very bad mood.
Serious questions get serious answers by me. But smokescreens don't.
Well, I get more and more the impression that you have resorted to trolling me. It is fine with me to explain this and that and that. But repeating statements over and over again (like the big-cities-argument) and not checking your assumptions (the greenland ice thickening) gives me a very bad mood.
Serious questions get serious answers by me. But smokescreens don't.
Cheers.
Fine Smircle, first of all, lets get one thing VERY clear I've never trolled anyone: least of all you !
Second point, I made the mistake of not posting the link to the greenland Ice issue. ( last time I checked it wasn't a hanging offence ). I do my research just like you. so do me the credit & don't insult my intelligence.
Repeating answers. that's cute one..look at your own replies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
But what the hell, I need to get some shut eye...
So lets call it quits.
Mods you can pull the shutters down on this whenever you feel like it.
Wasn't it you who was earlier complaining of a personal attack? Stay out of disscussions if you can't handle them. If you're wrong, you're just wrong. No need to get your panties in a wad. Admit it and move on, or just move on.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
wakey wakey..hand on snakey...
Not to quibble, but I'm fairly sure it's "wakey wakey hand off snakey"
Originally posted by Barto
Not to quibble, but I'm fairly sure it's "wakey wakey hand off snakey"
I was suggesting more of a renal alleviatory action brought on by an overly distended bladder than anything related to self congratulatory adulation of the one handed kind.
Originally posted by Aquafire
Explain this away Smircle...
"Recent computations ( e.g. Vinnikov, 1999 ) closely duplicate the onserved reduction of the mean annual ice extent.
Explain what away?
That the models work in simulating the ice retreat both qualitatively and quantitatively?
However, close inspection reveals disturbing discrepancy: Models show impacts in winter and observations show ice retreat in summer. As we expect from basic physical reasoning, the largest effects of greenhouse warming should be seen in the absence of solar radiation when thermal infrared radiation dominates the surface energy balanc. ie in winter.
Or in the Arctics. Where it is actually observed.
Aqua, I have worked in the field of data modeling (albeit in biology). I know exactly how hard it is to reduce the degrees of freedom in your simulations down from several hundret to a couple to get meaningful results. If they predicted the current ice retreat in '99, they are really, really good.
His call was simply to refine the simulations even more - this will need to be done over the next 50 years because no simulation can ever be perfect. Using this to challenge the model is weak and intellectually sterile because if we are observing a greenhouse and do nothing until the simulations are perfect, it will be a runaway greenhouse until we mover our fat asses. Talk about the frog and the slowly warming water.
Originally posted by Smircle
if we are observing a greenhouse and do nothing until the simulations are perfect, it will be a runaway greenhouse until we mover our fat asses. Talk about the frog and the slowly warming water.
Smircle, I really appreciate how difficult modelling is..having done it in my Botany degree days as well as later in statistical number crunching for my Master's degree in Ed Psych. ( all before the benefit of computers I might add...tough yakka indeed )
But difficult or not the bone of contention is as I stated.
I pour over data, compare models, scour magazines and keep posted via news updates on the web.. As I am sure you do.
We have different view points..
I know your open minded so take a look at this article and tell me what you think of their position regarding Co2 & Arctic ice cycles.
Cheers...Aqua..
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/...adalarctic.htm
Originally posted by Aquafire
I know your open minded so take a look at this article and tell me what you think of their position regarding Co2 & Arctic ice cycles.
Problematic, at the very least.
They obviously have a problem as recent findings do not support their view:
In a recent study, Serreze et al. (2003) analyzed the history of satellite passive microwave sea ice records (...) The results of their analysis showed a general downward trend in Arctic sea ice "during the passive microwave era" that culminated with record minimums for both sea ice extent and area in 2002
So, they take this quote and try to shoot it down (of course with older data which is more convenient).
As a counter-argument, they present the study "Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming." (http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_artic.../2002GL016406/). Their description of the study reads as following:
A long succession of climate models has consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming should be significantly amplified in earth's polar regions (...) Long-term temperature records, however, tell a vastly different story.
Vastly different? Let's look at the study instead of their opinion on it:
Arctic temperature deviation in green, northern hemisphere in red. Do we see two marked trends here?
In assessing the studies, they did not technically lie, they just skewed the facts.
It is true that the second study did not find a significant difference between the trends of the red and green plot, BUT to infer that the first study is not to be trusted or no clear trend is visible is just plain wrong.
This second study states:
Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variablity had little net effect on computed trends) are similar,
The first study says:
The sea ice trend is part of a larger pattern of recent Arctic change, which includes pronounced warming over sub-Arctic land areas and the Arctic Ocean, warming and increased extent of the Arctic Ocean's Atlantic layer, reductions in winter sea level pressure (SLP) and positive trends in winter indices of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (...) Time series of the AO and NAO are similar and there is debate whether they are separate atmospheric modes.
Yep, you get that right, both studies tell you
- there is a trend
- it has the same direction over the Arctic and northern hemisphere.
Their conclusion is then:
In light of the results of these several analyses, the next time you hear people getting excited about Arctic sea ice thinning or the Greenland Ice Sheet shrinking, tell them to check back in a decade or two; for there's a lot of natural variability to be overcome before we can be sure of anything even remotely related to potential impacts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the Arctic.
Hey, they conveniently forgot to mention there is a clear trend underlying the fluctuations and this trend is not limited to the Arctics. The "natural variability" is about +/-0.01 in the image above, the trend is around +0.05.
What is more (and the second cited study is to blame here, too) is that the proposed "oscillations" are not cyclic. We see one downturn, one upswing and then the trend is nearly linear. This is technically an oscillation, but there is no indication that it is going to repeat. Ever.
We are not sinking, keep playing...
You must have spent half a day doing the counter research.. While I went surfing...
In a nutshell then, the whole matter hinges in whether it is truly a cycical event or not.
As you acknowledge the evidence "technically" shows the hallmarks of it being an oscillatory event ( as they put it ). It may or may not repeat. I grant you that. But in fairness even you cannot totally dismiss the possibility of it being a recurring event either.
Second point with reference to the +0.05 degree "rise" (and this we have gone over before ), but I remind you that many meteorologists are dubious given the location of the vast majority of their recording devices: ie inner cites and other areas located near localised industrial zones.
Third point...Greenland is experiencing an increase in snow cover and the average temperature has been dropping for a number of years. Greenland is also much closer to Europe than the North pole and is also surrounded by oceanic currents that include the Arctic circumular current. By all accounts Greenland should be warming not cooling.
Can you explain it ?
Ps I am certainly old enough to remember the enviromental protagonists of the 70's proclaim a very real ice age was about to be heralded...
Well guess what ? Yep..the stirrings of this band of devotees is back...
You might enjoy reading this. From " The Guardian" no less...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html
Just when everyone is largely settled in their prognostications, someone one has to come along and rock the boat...
Originally posted by Aquafire
As you acknowledge the evidence "technically" shows the hallmarks of it being an oscillatory event ( as they put it ). It may or may not repeat. I grant you that. But in fairness even you cannot totally dismiss the possibility of it being a recurring event either.
Occam's razor. Look at the graph again and tell me if you see a cyclic oscillation or one leading to a linear trend:
20 out of 120 years, we have temperatures below average, 100 out of 120 they are above. No prove?
Not to be nitpicking, but no trend in a natural system lasts forever, at some point it will reach equilibrium or oscillate back. What matters is if it goes beyond the current boundaries and (in the case of the global weather) how costly the results are. AFAIK noone believes global warming will lead to combustion, but that does not tell you all is well.
Second point with reference to the +0.05 degree "rise" (and this we have gone over before ), but I remind you that many meteorologists are dubious given the location of the vast majority of their recording devices: ie inner cites and other areas located near localised industrial zones.
The green data in the graph above stems from Greenland and other polar regions. To repeat it:
no huge cities there.
Third point...Greenland is experiencing an increase in snow cover and the average temperature has been dropping for a number of years. Greenland is also much closer to Europe than the North pole and is also surrounded by oceanic currents that include the Arctic circumular current. By all accounts Greenland should be warming not cooling.
Can you explain it ?
Easy enough, it is warming and the ice is not increasing:
The total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet for 2002 broke all known records for the island and the extent of Arctic sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, according to scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder.(...)
Steffen's analyses with graduate student Russel Huff show a dramatically higher melting trend since 1979 that appears only to have been interrupted once -- in 1991 -- when the Philippines' Mt. Pinatubo erupted.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html (Dec. 2002)
A NASA study of Greenland's ice sheet reveals that it is rapidly thinning.(..)
For the first time, we are seeing evidence that one of the two great ice bodies on the Earth (the other is the Antarctic ice sheet) is contributing, in a modest fashion, to observed sea level rise
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0007/24greenlandice/ (Jul. 2000)
The Arctic's Greenland Ice Sheet -- the largest mass of land-based ice outside of Antarctica, with 8 percent of the world's ice -- has thinned more than a meter per year on average since 1993 along parts of its southern and eastern edges.
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0400/et0400s9.html (Apr. 2000)
There is some localized thickening, but the grand total is negative. (Of course, our friends at the industry-sponsored co2science.org-site twist the facts about localized thickening to make it appear the overall trend was a thickening - rather sickening
Just when everyone is largely settled in their prognostications, someone one has to come along and rock the boat...
So, if for instance one part of the world warms 10° and another gets 10° colder, no climate change has happened?
If a model predicts cooling in Europe because the gulf stream breaks down and heating in the subtropics because of greenhouse gases, the model is contradictory and therefore worthles?
Yeah that's really conclusive. You might want to run for US presidency... Do away with all those annoying facts and stick to a healthy critizism, no matter what. After all, they can't point a gun to your head to make you believe.
Originally posted by Smircle
So, if for instance one part of the world warms 10? and another gets 10? colder, no climate change has happened?
If a model predicts cooling in Europe because the gulf stream breaks down and heating in the subtropics because of greenhouse gases, the model is contradictory and therefore worthles?
Yeah that's really conclusive.
You might want to run for US presidency... Do away with all those annoying facts and stick to a healthy critizism, no matter what. After all, they can't point a gun to your head to make you believe.
Now I know the meaning of "Mad"
Smircle launching into a personal attack is not called for man. I haven't shown you any disrespect have I ?
I merely posted the Ice age link to hear your opinion on it.. It is Not my opinion OK...Sheesh.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Aqua
Originally posted by Aquafire
Now I know the meaning of "Mad"
Smircle launching into a personal attack is not called for man. I haven't shown you any disrespect have I ?
I merely posted the Ice age link to hear your opinion on it.. It is Not my opinion OK...Sheesh.
Well, I get more and more the impression that you have resorted to trolling me. It is fine with me to explain this and that and that. But repeating statements over and over again (like the big-cities-argument) and not checking your assumptions (the greenland ice thickening) gives me a very bad mood.
Serious questions get serious answers by me. But smokescreens don't.
Cheers.
Originally posted by Smircle
Well, I get more and more the impression that you have resorted to trolling me. It is fine with me to explain this and that and that. But repeating statements over and over again (like the big-cities-argument) and not checking your assumptions (the greenland ice thickening) gives me a very bad mood.
Serious questions get serious answers by me. But smokescreens don't.
Cheers.
Fine Smircle, first of all, lets get one thing VERY clear I've never trolled anyone: least of all you !
Second point, I made the mistake of not posting the link to the greenland Ice issue. ( last time I checked it wasn't a hanging offence ). I do my research just like you. so do me the credit & don't insult my intelligence.
Repeating answers. that's cute one..look at your own replies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
But what the hell, I need to get some shut eye...
So lets call it quits.
Mods you can pull the shutters down on this whenever you feel like it.
I'm finished with the topic.
Enjoy your day Smircle.
Originally posted by Aquafire
Back to your cave troll.
Troll? Did I start this thread? Did I write that story? I'm sorry someone is doing the studies you've said you'd believe if they were done.
Originally posted by bunge
Troll? Did I start this thread? Did I write that story? I'm sorry someone is doing the studies you've said you'd believe if they were done.
Your right Bunge, it should have read..
" Get back to your cave you Troglodyte "
Originally posted by Aquafire
Your right Bunge, it should have read..
" Get back to your cave you Troglodyte "
Wasn't it you who was earlier complaining of a personal attack? Stay out of disscussions if you can't handle them. If you're wrong, you're just wrong. No need to get your panties in a wad. Admit it and move on, or just move on.