Global warming traps scientists in ice

[brenthutch 388]

Or the same as it was in 1980. Oh the horror.

Who is losing now, junebug?

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

***The "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."


In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.

From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.


Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)

What is wrong is your understanding of the statements.

You interpret noise in a signal as part of the signal. It isn't.

I know, but if the signal is lost in the noise, it is not much of a signal.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

***The "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."


In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.

From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.


Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)

What is wrong is your understanding of the statements.

You interpret noise in a signal as part of the signal. It isn't.

My bad, I must have missed the whole noise/signal thing. Perhaps you could elucidate me. I am just a slack jawed, corn bred, mouth breather from Iowa. When I read "Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases." I thought they were saying, "Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
Clearly you possess a Vizzincian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0 level of intellect

[billvon 2,434]

>Or the same as it was in 1980.

1980 temperature average: .1C above average
2009 temperature average: .6C anove average
2013 temperature average: .6C above average

>Who is losing now, junebug?

Based on the facts I'd say you are, rather badly. (However, you may well be winning in your own mind; it's your beliefs that really count.)

[billvon 2,434]

>I know, but if the signal is lost in the noise, it is not much of a signal.

It's not lost in the noise - unless you're "deskewing" the data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png

[kallend 1,648]

brenthutch

******The "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."


In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.

From NOAA (more "real" climate scientists): In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. The 2013 annual temperature marked the coolest year for the nation since 2009.


Just what will it take for you to admit the IPCC got it wrong. (Not a rhetorical statement, I really want to know)

What is wrong is your understanding of the statements.

You interpret noise in a signal as part of the signal. It isn't.

I know, but if the signal is lost in the noise, it is not much of a signal.

That is not the case with climate, however.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Let me try this again. On an earlier post, I added a bit of National data from NOAA. Clearly there were those on this forum that could not keep up. My apologies.

The "real" climate scientist at the IPCC said:

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."


In reality, HadCRUT4 observations are currently transiting the 95% certainty threshold of the IPCC's multi-model mean.

Does this mean the modelers were stupid? No it just means that there is more going on than is reflected in the models.

There is a thing I like to call The Scientific Method. It goes a little something like this.
OBSERVATION
The globe is getting warmer.
HYPOTHESIS
Due to man-made greenhouse gases.
PREDICTION
If CO2 levels continue to rise the planet will continue to heat, at a given rate.
EXPERIMENT/OBSERVATION
The planet did not warm as much as we predicted
CONCLUSION
If the hypothesis does not agree with observation, then you must reject the hypothesis.

Class dismissed

[kallend 1,648]

Business windfalls as a consequence of global warming:

www.wunderground.com/news/global-warming-business-booming-windfall-mckenzie-funk-20140127

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChrisD 0]

lawrocket

***I've lost track of how many times in your threads people have to issue the reminder that weather is not climate.

A couple of thoughts:

(1) See the attached graph of Antarctic sea ice extent on December 28. The trend is higher.

(2) The overall trend of Antarctic sea ice is higher over the last thirty years. It's been above 2 standard deviations all year.

(3) Sea ice isn't exactly "gone one day and 3 meters thick the next." Meteorologists could have said, "um. That path is closed." Or seen, "Hey. We have this high pressure system developing and it's going to push a bunch of ice over at us within the next three or four days. Let's beat it. Now." Anybody can watch "Deadliest Catch" and see that sea ice can be seen and avoided. All you have to do is...

(4) Look out the damned windows! The collective scientific expertise could have been used to say, "Hey. Captain. Our looks at imagery are showing a solid ice field blocking our route. Looking out the window we sure can see it. What say we back off a few miles and figure out what to do?"

(5) I cannot help but think that these scientists are so heavily invested in their belief that sea ice is decresing, thinner, weaker, etc., that they ignored all the raw, unadjusted data that their computers and their their own damned eyes were showing them. Either that or "go fever" seriously affected the judgment of all. This was not a "calculated risk." This was a ship's captain (my blame goes straight to him first) who damned the figurative torpedoes. But it was also several score of experts (was there a more concentrated group of experts anywhere on the planet?) who, at best, remained willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding them - those facts being the subject of their expertise.

(6) They put themselves at risk. The captain put them at risk. And everybody trying to get them out is being put at risk.

(7) The expedition was to be scientific, but recreated another expedition that killed 2 out of the 3 people on it.

(8) This is the Antarctic summer. And they're getting clobbered by sea ice and blizzards. I'm wondering if that ship will be able to get out of the ice this year at all.

I think this is a fine example of a case where weather can be reasonably foreseen on the basis of the known climate. It's not like it's a freak sea ice occurrence. It's not a freak Antarctic blizzard. It's par for the course where they are.

Number 3

Since the Seventh Century and Shackleton, sea ice has in fact been there one day and in fact 3 feet thick the next. Once again your advancing the principle of I know an instance of and ignoring the long range trends. We could easily point out using your logic that because it snowed this past week in southern CA that the deep freezz is here. It's just as bizarre as your ill informed attempts at persuasion.
Boy say what you will, but I would love to put you in front of the euro crowd that at the current time is spending millions in proactive measures for the current sea level rise. I can only imagine the responses that will emanate from a few that are now living in house boats 50 years from now. O'h by the way what happened to the 5000 year old layer of ice on Mt. Kilamajaro? It was there last year.
I just heard a story from someone that made "the" hike, and now the locals are forbidding anyone from going near the remaining snow on the peak??? Reminds me of Herod and the sea,....For the most part you wont find many pointing to the ice recession as the final word, but I can't help noticing you continue to use recent events to support your spin on GWT. God help us all if you point to the san annas as the door to hell was left open as proof that the apocalypse is here!

BTW you do realize that Wickipedia is the largest source of hearsay, innuendo and WAGs that the world has yet to see! The Scholastic Companies that for the most part determine the syllabuses' for all secondary and University courses have recently written into their curriculum for just about every research and writing course that they are to spend time pointing out that Wick is NOT to be used under any circumstances. Due to the unverifiable nature of its content. But that doesn't stop you guys does it?????
C

Lawrocket: "Talking about a few hundredths of a degree isn't much worth arguing about, I don't think."

Mass my son, mass! And I do think, too much most of the time.

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[kelpdiver 2]

ChrisD

O'h by the way what happened to the 5000 year old layer of ice on Mt. Kilamajaro? It was there last year.
I just heard a story from someone that made "the" hike, and now the locals are forbidding anyone from going near the remaining snow on the peak???

"The ice cap on Kilimanjaro consists of ice on the 5,700-meter-high flat summit, some with vertical edges, and several slope glaciers, mostly at altitudes where temperatures stay well below freezing and the major source of energy is solar radiation. Considerable infrared radiation is emitted from the glacier surface into the surrounding air, and the glaciers lose the most mass through sublimation-the direct conversion of ice to water vapor. Observers have seen only a trickle of meltwater."

The interesting part about the glaciers on Kila is how the date keeps getting pushed back. I made sure to get up there 5 years ago when 'the end' could be as soon as 2015, now it ranges from 2030-2060. And it was definitely cold up there, though with a very bright sun, as you'd expect at 19k feet. It's also believed that deforestation on the lower slopes reduces moisture flow toward the top, increasing the effect of sublimation.

There aren't that many people up top, and even fewer camping in the crater (talk about a dinner tent full of zombies - of my group of 16, only 3 had the motivation to leave their tent and walk the couple hundred yards to Furtwangler Glacier. People walk the path to the summit through the snow, aren't wasting energy wandering off the beaten trail.

[lawrocket 3]

Don't mention that. It's heresy. Some things to be understood about Kilimanjaro are:
(1) Don't ever, ever point out the fact that the glaciers had been ablating quickly since before the 1850s
(2) Don't ever point out that it is below freezing up there and that the glaciers are ablating through sublimation (as tropical glaciers do). This does NOT fit the AGW storyline.
(3) Don't ever, ever point out glacier ablation due to lack of precipitation. Glaciers only melt because of heat, and it's only hot because of global warming and this is only due to human activities.
(4) Don't ever, ever, ever, ever point to local land use unless it is a Republican district and never in Africa. Sure, deforestation at the base of the mountain has meant less precipitation on top. But there is no way to blame to Koch brothers for that, so keep a lid on it, bub.

In all seriousness, I do wish people would educate themselves on the science of this. When people insert politics as a way to be science deniers as ChrisD did, we must be able to actually put out the science so that it speaks for itself and counter the anti-science religious stuff. One cannot be reasonable with a person already convinced of his own supremacy - he's demonstrated that alternatives to his dogma are not to be considered. Ever.

I make no mistake about it - anthropogenic global warming is a political and legal fact. The Pope Presidennt has proclaimed it to be so, and has made it known that there shall be no dissent. Michael Mann himself wrote last week:

Quote

Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” We scientists are citizens, too, and, in climate change, we see a clear and present danger.

I think part of the problem that the alarmist crowd has is that they just aren't effective communicators. The DHS program is one designed to have neighbors and associates all snitching on each other to get government to sweep in, take them in and protect everyone. This is why Mann's metaphor is ill-considered. He says he needs to say something about the danger. Okay. But he's equating it with police state.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ChrisD 0]

lawrocket

Don't mention that. It's heresy. Some things to be understood about Kilimanjaro are:
(1) Don't ever, ever point out the fact that the glaciers had been ablating quickly since before the 1850s
(2) Don't ever point out that it is below freezing up there and that the glaciers are ablating through sublimation (as tropical glaciers do). This does NOT fit the AGW storyline.
(3) Don't ever, ever point out glacier ablation due to lack of precipitation. Glaciers only melt because of heat, and it's only hot because of global warming and this is only due to human activities.
(4) Don't ever, ever, ever, ever point to local land use unless it is a Republican district and never in Africa. Sure, deforestation at the base of the mountain has meant less precipitation on top. But there is no way to blame to Koch brothers for that, so keep a lid on it, bub.

In all seriousness, I do wish people would educate themselves on the science of this. When people insert politics as a way to be science deniers as ChrisD did, we must be able to actually put out the science so that it speaks for itself and counter the anti-science religious stuff. One cannot be reasonable with a person already convinced of his own supremacy - he's demonstrated that alternatives to his dogma are not to be considered. Ever.

I make no mistake about it - anthropogenic global warming is a political and legal fact. The Pope Presidennt has proclaimed it to be so, and has made it known that there shall be no dissent. Michael Mann himself wrote last week:

Quote

Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” We scientists are citizens, too, and, in climate change, we see a clear and present danger.

I think part of the problem that the alarmist crowd has is that they just aren't effective communicators. The DHS program is one designed to have neighbors and associates all snitching on each other to get government to sweep in, take them in and protect everyone. This is why Mann's metaphor is ill-considered. He says he needs to say something about the danger. Okay. But he's equating it with police state.

If you carefully read what I said about receding ice, I was agreeing with you at some point in there. It was an off hand comment about the locals and their attempts to keep the tourists away from the snow, I thank the other person for giving us an update about the hike up there, but I was more interested in some of the antics the local "guides" were doing to keep people off the snow. I heard that bringing up a pair of skies for example, (never mind the difficulty) but to bring up a pair of ski's is illegal???

Yo also don't get my point about mass? The point is that one one hundredths of a degree with large mass's do in fact matter, they matter a great deal!

Considering in this country our politicians do little funding and even less actual action to support or not GWT. I fail to see how you continue to speak about actual political realities?? Especially compared with many Euro and Asian countries.

I am extremely concerned about how our society has turned from community to a snitching society. I think there is great truth in that statement!

As far as science speaking for itself I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I'm not going to have a science debate with you , only because of your lack of an education, there is no point having such a discussion, it would be like a kindergarten kid speaking with a PHD, well that is closer to the truth I know, but I say that in the nicest way I can.
It also has not gone un-noticed how quickly you drop certain subjects, when the opposing viewpoint presents the actual undisputed facts of our physical world. I know that you relish the joy of quickly changing subjects and diluting any conversation with a plethora of chaff and chumm, it's a great rhetorical technique, but on those that have a more rounded viewpoint, experience, and education, we all can clearly see thru that little gem.... your the one in the pulpit fanning the flames, rousing your flock to action, although they or yourself aren't sure what it is your rousing about, and as your mob falls apart as it chases its tail and loses momentum half way down the street, as most lynching's do??? Many have us have learned just to stay out of the way, so that we don't become an innocent victim or the human sacrifice that your type require to appease the "gods." By the way here is a bag of marshmallows for your use the next time you want to throw someone in the volcano....

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[brenthutch 388]

ChrisD

only because of your lack of an education, there is no point having such a discussion, it would be like a kindergarten kid speaking with a PHD, well that is closer to the truth I know, but I say that in the nicest way I can. Smile When so many people, in really, really large numbers, would rather get their information from the National Enquirer as compared with about 12 years of intensive study and research, this speaks volumes.C

It isn't that you are ignorant, it is just that you know so much that isn't so.

Fact: Global sea ice extent is at or near the average in the satellite era. (NSIDC)

Fact: Global temperatures have remained flat for the last 15 years. (HadCrut4)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

because of your lack of an education, there is no point having such a discussion, it would be like a kindergarten kid speaking with a PHD, well that is closer to the truth I know, but I say that in the nicest way I can. Smile When so many people, in really, really large numbers, would rather get their information from the National Enquirer as compared with about 12 years of intensive study and research, this speaks volumes.

I'll put my doctorate degree against yours..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

lawrocket

Quote

because of your lack of an education, there is no point having such a discussion, it would be like a kindergarten kid speaking with a PHD, well that is closer to the truth I know, but I say that in the nicest way I can. Smile When so many people, in really, really large numbers, would rather get their information from the National Enquirer as compared with about 12 years of intensive study and research, this speaks volumes.

I'll put my doctorate degree against yours..

Since when is a JD a real doctorate?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, hey. I didn't say I'd put my doctorate against yours, John.

But my doctorate is in bullshit detection. I'm not so goood at smelling my own, but that of others? Yep.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

nypost.com/2014/02/01/big-oil-not-only-believes-in-global-warming-theyll-profit-from-it/

...
Big Oil not only believes in global warming, it’s factoring it into the business plan. ...

One need only read Exxon’s website to know that the company that once funneled tens of millions of dollars to climate skeptics has had a change of heart: “ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent,” bold letters now declare, “to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing [greenhouse gas] emissions.”
An internal, company-wide “shadow price” for carbon, $60 per metric ton, helps Exxon identify which of its divisions are the biggest polluters and most in need of improvement. Exxon has even quietly proposed that the United States levy a carbon tax — not necessarily out of love for the planet but because some form of greenhouse regulation seems inevitable, and Exxon would like to shield its shareholders from what it considers the worse fate of cap-and-trade.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChrisD 0]

lawrocket

Hey, hey. I didn't say I'd put my doctorate against yours, John.

But my doctorate is in bullshit detection. I'm not so goood at smelling my own, but that of others? Yep.

You also lead the way on this topic here, with over 1000 posts on the subject,...
I will be the first to agree with you that your bullshit pile is the largest here. I suppose that's why you can't smell it. They say "everyone, loves their own brand."?

See, we do agree!
C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[kallend 1,648]

lawrocket

Fresno's been in the mid-60s to low-70s for the last 3 or 4 weeks. We should be in mid 50s. Thus, we've been in a heat wave. Kinda weird how many people and plants aren't dying.

www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/us/severe-drought-has-us-west-fearing-worst.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TWC3.png

Kind of tells you all you need to know about the accuracy of the climate models.

[billvon 2,434]

Hmm. What is this denier site, Icecap? Let's look at who runs it:

========
Robert C. Balling Jr -Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Sallie Baliunas – Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a “Scientific Adviser” to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies.

Robert M. Carter- Sits on the advisory board os the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto.

Reid A. Bryson- While certainly a climatologist and skeptic, Dr. Bryson passed away last year yet is still listed on icecap as being a consultant.
==========

So you believe a dead guy and three paid fossil fuel consultants.

Looks like you've been played for a fool again by some very well-funded (and one dead) denier.

[brenthutch 388]

The modeling data is from the IPCC. The temperature data is from government agencies. Unless you have any data to the contrary, I would recommend that you remain silent and let folks think that you are a fool, rather than posting nonsense and removing all doubt.

[lawrocket 3]

Ad hominem is the weakest form of evidence, bill.

If a person does not attack the data, does not attack the methods, does not attack the conclusions but only attacks the person, it's a strong indication of a tedious point.

But you know that, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[futuredivot 0]

Maybe if an engineering type, say a Burt Rutan or somebody took a look at the data and methodology from and engineering standpoint it would be enlightening. I'd bet Kallend and Bill could really address something like that if it existed...or they might ignore it or attack the author. I guess we'll never know.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[brenthutch 388]

When one earns a MBA, one picks up a few tips on how to crunch data. Just saying.