Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next

Comments 61551 to 61600:

  1. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Oh &, before you ask-RSS (satellite) data shows similar year to year fluctuations in the temperature anomalies-with the sole exception of 1997-1998, & 1998-1999 (a change of +/-0.45 respectively). You see, what you clearly fail to understand about year to year fluctuations is that they're usually *corrected*, but still the underlying minima & maxima continue to rise (so for the 1980's, its -0.25 & +0.09; for the 1990's its -0.18 & +0.55-for 1998 only-though its most commonly +0.15; for the 2000's, its +0.08 to +0.55-though its most commonly +0.3 degrees. Again, notice the *trend*).
  2. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 139),

    "GISS global temperature anomalies. Maybe you should check out the data before you go running off at the mouth-especially when you consider that this represents the average anomaly for the entire globe."

    I'm looking at UAH and RSS. Both show year to year fluctuations up to 0.5 C. Now the temperature departures from the average don't show this much variation but that's to be expected.
  3. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 (Re:138) GISS global temperature anomalies. Maybe you should check out the data before you go running off at the mouth-especially when you consider that this represents the average anomaly for the entire globe. Its worth noting that the +0.6 degrees of warming over the span of the *entire* Medieval Warm Period was sufficient to wipe out 3 major civilizations (The Anasazi, the Mayans & the Khmer Empire)-so yes there is something to be concerned about.
    The other point is that, as the data shows, regardless of what the year to year fluctuations are, the minimum & maximum anomalies are shifting up-by around +0.1 degrees-per decade. i.e. year to year fluctuations have yet to even bring the planet's temperatures back to the averages of the 1990's, let alone the averages of 30 years ago.
  4. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 135),

    "Another typical denialist cult argument, RW1. You clearly haven't even got a *clue* how the temperature anomalies work-or the warming trend-or you wouldn't make such a blindingly ignorant comment. In fact there are no 0.4 to 0.5 degree fluctuations in temperatures, as you claim. Average year-to-year fluctuations are more on a scale of 0.05 to 0.2 degrees."

    What data are you looking at specifically?
  5. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    The point, RW1, is that your reliance on all the tried-&-true Denialist myths exposes you as yet another resident of the Denialist Cult. As such, I really don't think there's any point in people trying to further address your "concerns"-given that everyone has already been sufficiently patient in the face of your increasingly ludicrous claims. Maybe you should go hang out with your mates Anthony Watts & PopTech, as they have about the same weak grasp on reality as you do.
  6. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "What statistical circles? I don't think it's nearly enough. I would think at least a 100 years would be needed to get an accurate picture - perhaps even longer."

    Yet another typical Denialist Argument. Even if we had 100 years of satellite data, you'd still say it wasn't enough-you & your denialist mates keep shifting the goal-posts of what constitutes evidence, so that you can maintain your denial-yet you'll leap on the smallest amount of data to "prove" your point. As a *scientist* myself, I have a very good understanding of what amount of data is accepted as statistically significant-you, on the other hand, have *no clue* about statistical significance.


    "What about the 30 years of statistical cooling between about 1940 and 1970? If that happened to be the period as the base for the '*average* state of affairs', you'd have concluded it was cooling (or at least that it wasn't warming)."

    There is so much *noise* in that data that its not actually statistically significant-largely because the time series you use marks the end of the solar induced warming of the first half of the 20th century (1900-1945), & the brief cooling that followed it. It also represents the usual cherry-picking I've equally come to expect from the Denialist Cult. If I take 1945-1975, for example, I get a modest warming trend (though, again, not statistically significant). By contrast, if you take 1950-2010 or 1980 to 2010, you get a very statistically significant warming trend. Anyway, why are you talking about 1940-1970? I thought you only trusted satellite data?

    "But the average used for the standard deviation is from 1979-2000 and not 1979-2010. Did you catch that? The record low extent didn't occur until 2007. These are some of the kinds of issues that can skew the trend analysis when only such a short period of time is available."

    Oh, that's too hilarious RW1. Yes, 1979-2000, a period in which the majority of the experts believe that ice loss was already underway (& had been for about a decade). Yet all the ice coverage for 2001-2010 has been below even *this* average. You denialists do have an uncanny knack of shooting yourselves in the foot.
  7. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "Given that the amount of fluctuation from year to year is frequently as much as 0.4 to 0.5 C, I'm hardly shaking in my boots. The last 30 years could be easily wiped out in just a couple years. "

    Another typical denialist cult argument, RW1. You clearly haven't even got a *clue* how the temperature anomalies work-or the warming trend-or you wouldn't make such a blindingly ignorant comment. In fact there are no 0.4 to 0.5 degree fluctuations in temperatures, as you claim. Average year-to-year fluctuations are more on a scale of 0.05 to 0.2 degrees. Also, the minimum & maximum anomaly in each decade continues to increase. So in the 1980's, the minimum anomaly was +0.05 degrees & the maximum was +0.31 (in 1988 alone)-with the most common maximum being +0.26. In the 1990's, the minimum anomaly was +0.13 degrees, & the maximum was +0.57 degrees (in 1998 alone), with the most common anomaly for the decade being around +0.35. In the 2000's, the minimum anomaly was +0.32 degrees & the maximum was +0.62 degrees-with the next most common anomaly being around +0.55 to +0.6 degrees. You see a *pattern* emerging?
  8. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 125),

    "In statistical circles, 30 years of data *is* considered sufficient to arrive at a reasonable *average* state of affairs."

    What statistical circles? I don't think it's nearly enough. I would think at least a 100 years would be needed to get an accurate picture - perhaps even longer.

    What about the 30 years of statistical cooling between about 1940 and 1970? If that happened to be the period as the base for the '*average* state of affairs', you'd have concluded it was cooling (or at least that it wasn't warming).


    "Remember that ice loss isn't just below this average, its more than 2 standard deviations below this average. That makes this ice loss *incredibly* unusual & ongoing. Oh, but its not anecdotal evidence from an article in a newspaper, so how could you *possibly* be accurate?"

    But the average used for the standard deviation is from 1979-2000 and not 1979-2010. Did you catch that? The record low extent didn't occur until 2007. These are some of the kinds of issues that can skew the trend analysis when only such a short period of time is availble.
  9. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Funny how this thread has come to resemble the Denominator thread...

    The Yooper
  10. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 124)

    "Typical straw-man argument-exactly what I expect from a card-carrying denialist. We only have 30-odd years of satellite data but-in spite of its greater accuracy-it does *not* invalidate the decades of direct observation & measurement that occurred in the decades prior to satellite. You just deny the evidence in front of your own eyes, & use the old canard of "30-years is insufficient" argument to cover yourself-because you know there is no real come-back if you refuse to accept other valid data."

    Sorry, I have a hard time believing non-satellite data on Artic sea ice extents is reliable. You should be a little more skeptical of such data yourself.

    Yet funny how you denialists will rant, rave & scream that "global warming has stopped" if even a *single* year-or even a single *month* is colder than expected."

    I don't do this.

    "Try closer to almost +0.5 degrees of warming in a 30 year period (over 0.16 degrees per decade), which is actually around 3 times faster than the warming we saw in the first half of the 20th century-you know, when solar activity was rising rapidly. This warming we've seen lately has occurred against the backdrop of falling solar activity, & higher than normal volcanic activity (especially over 1990-2010). It's about 10 times as fast as the warming believed to have occurred during the MWP (which saw a total of +0.6 degrees of warming over a span of SIX HUNDRED YEARS). So yep, the fastest warming ever recorded, & without the usual causes to explain even a slower rate of warming."

    Given that the amount of fluctuation from year to year is frequently as much as 0.4 to 0.5 C, I'm hardly shaking in my boots. The last 30 years could be easily wiped out in just a couple years.
  11. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 "Antarctic sea ice to expand, is awfully convenient"

    Typical Denialist-speak I'm afraid. You've been outed mate. I'd suggest you'd do much, much better at WUWT, because your claims won't be held up to nearly as much scrutiny as they are here.
  12. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1. In the Southern Hemisphere, we've seen a significant rise in temperatures in the Southern Ocean. This has caused rain-making systems to shift southwards towards Antarctica. At low altitudes, this increased precipitation is causing increased calving & ice loss along the peninsulas, whilst at high altitudes its-surprise, surprise-falling as *snow* & *ice*. So when you look at the total ice extent for Antarctica, you're seeing both the increased ice extent on the higher altitude Eastern side of the continent (from increased, warming-induced precipitation) & the declining ice extent on the Western side of the Continent (caused by the same warming-induced precipitation increases).
  13. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Okay, correction. Some areas of Antarctica are warming at +0.1 degrees per year (especially around the peninsulas) the rest of Antarctica is warming at closer to a rate of 0.03 to 0.05 degrees per year-which still makes it significantly faster than average warming for the same period.
  14. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 121),

    "So now we are supposed to have two 'complex series of factors'; one causing melting, the other freezing. Each unexplained, undocumented and apparently unknowable. Science marches on, I suppose."

    No, the point is it's very likely the confluence of factors are just as numerous and complex for both, and assuming anthropogenic CO2 induced warming is what's primarily causing the Artic ice to melt while also assuming a confluence of complex factors, completely unrelated to anthropogenic CO2 induced warming, is what's primarily causing the Antarctic sea ice to expand, is awfully convenient.
  15. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Even if we ignore the fact that this is NH data only, then what I see, Angusmac, is a roughly 0.6 degrees of warming between the period of 600 AD & 1000AD (though the actual dates might be very different)-to put that in context, this represents a rate of change of +0.15 degrees *per century*. By contrast, the warming of the last 60 years has been at a rate of +0.12 degrees *per decade*-a rate ten times *faster* than during the MWP. Not only that, but paleo-climatologists have identified clear forcings responsible for the MWP (primarily a sustained, multi-century rise in solar activity, as determined from Be-10 & C-14 isotope analysis.) By contrast, the last 60 years of warming has been against a backdrop of relatively low solar activity & relatively high levels of volcanic activity. So, in fact, your comparisons are totally odious.
  16. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    According to NASA's Earth Observatory, warming in Antarctica is closer to +0.1 degrees *per year* between 1981 & 2007, which amounts to around +2.6 degrees of warming. I'd call that *very* rapid.
  17. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 In the Arctic, its more like >0.8 degrees in 30 years.



    0.3 degrees per decade is a Northern Hemisphere norm these days. See the Northern hemisphere warming thread.
  18. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1. In statistical circles, 30 years of data *is* considered sufficient to arrive at a reasonable *average* state of affairs. Remember that ice loss isn't just below this average, its more than 2 standard deviations below this average. That makes this ice loss *incredibly* unusual & ongoing. Oh, but its not anecdotal evidence from an article in a newspaper, so how could you *possibly* be accurate?

    Seriously, this kind of nonsense might work with your mates over at Watts Up With That, but we have a slightly higher standard of *evidence* here.
  19. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "observed" in what way? I tend to only trust the satellite data on this.

    Typical straw-man argument-exactly what I expect from a card-carrying denialist. We only have 30-odd years of satellite data but-in spite of its greater accuracy-it does *not* invalidate the decades of direct observation & measurement that occurred in the decades prior to satellite. You just deny the evidence in front of your own eyes, & use the old canard of "30-years is insufficient" argument to cover yourself-because you know there is no real come-back if you refuse to accept other valid data. Yet funny how you denialists will rant, rave & scream that "global warming has stopped" if even a *single* year-or even a single *month* is colder than expected.

    "3 or 4 tenths of degree warming in 30 years is the most rapid warming ever observed"

    Try closer to almost +0.5 degrees of warming in a 30 year period (over 0.16 degrees per decade), which is actually around 3 times faster than the warming we saw in the first half of the 20th century-you know, when solar activity was rising rapidly. This warming we've seen lately has occurred against the backdrop of falling solar activity, & higher than normal volcanic activity (especially over 1990-2010). It's about 10 times as fast as the warming believed to have occurred during the MWP (which saw a total of +0.6 degrees of warming over a span of SIX HUNDRED YEARS). So yep, the fastest warming ever recorded, & without the usual causes to explain even a slower rate of warming.
  20. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 121)

    "Did you read the overview?"

    Yes I did.
  21. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus (RE: 119),

    "It is when the previous 100 years of observed ice extent show no significant change."

    "observed" in what way? I tend to only trust the satellite data on this.

    "Funny that this sudden change just "happens" to coincide with the period of most rapid warming ever observed."

    3 or 4 tenths of degree warming in 30 years is the most rapid warming ever observed?
  22. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1, No, that's what I came up as a quick analogy to your nonsensical notion that anyone expects the Antarctic continent to melt. An analogy is not a technical answer.

    Did you read the overview? It poses at least two answers to your 'question.'

    "if I'm to believe that complex of a series of factors is likely causing the Antarctic sea ice to grow ... why should I not believe that an equally numerous and complex series of factors ... is what's causing the Artic sea ice to melt?"

    So now we are supposed to have two 'complex series of factors'; one causing melting, the other freezing. Each unexplained, undocumented and apparently unknowable. Science marches on, I suppose.

    What you choose to believe is your own lookout. But perhaps the reasons lie in the fact that the oceanographic, atmospheric and physiographic settings of the Arctic and Antarctic are completely different? One has much less ozone than the other? One is in the hemisphere with most of the sources of CO2, the other isn't? One is land completely surrounded by open water, the other is water surrounded by land?
  23. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE:RE: 116),

    "Actually, the Antarctic Sea Ice trend is currently negative:"

    The trend is nearly even or slightly positive. The past year is slightly below the average.

    "With a long-term decline in evidence:"

    Does that look like reliable data to you with all those straight lines for such long periods?
    Moderator Response: [DB] If you had even bothered to peruse the link I gave you for your edification you would have found an answer to your "straight lines" question, among others. That indicates you're not even trying to learn, but obfuscate.
  24. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    "I'm simply saying 30 years isn't enough data to know whether the downward trend is anything unusual". It is when the previous 100 years of observed ice extent show no significant change. Funny that this sudden change just "happens" to coincide with the period of most rapid warming ever observed.
  25. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 117),

    Seriously, if I'm to believe that complex of a series of factors is likely causing the Antarctic sea ice to grow inspite of 'global warming', why should I not believe that an equally numerous and complex series of factors, and not primarily 'global warming, is what's causing the Artic sea ice to melt?

    (*BTW, I don't doubt the reasons for the Antarctic increasing sea ice extent are numerous and complex, nor do I doubt that many of the listed mechanisms could very well be playing a role.).
  26. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1,

    See An overview of Antarctic ice. No one is expecting the continent to melt; the attic of your house may be on fire, but the food in your basement freezer will still be cold.
  27. Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
    Moderator, I thought that my point was obvious - when you use AR4 Figure 6.10c you get a pronounced MWP, which is similar to the recent warming period.

    I am not sure what you mean when you state "if you hide the incline". I have hidden nothing. I just removed instrumental data to compare proxy records with proxy records, i.e., I compare "apples with apples".
    Moderator Response: [DB] First you remove the most accurate temperature record we have. Second you compare an event specific to the Northern Hemisphere from hundreds of years ago and pronounce it "similar" to the modern rise in temperature (which is not restricted to just the Northern Hemisphere) - which you no longer show. Hence my statement about your hiding the incline and thus my question about your point. Read this post to gain some insights into the MWP. And third, the temperature rise since 1980 or so is largely attributed to the rise in greenhouse gases, principally CO2, which are sourced to our burning of fossil fuels. Since this option (anthropogenic CO2) was not available during the MWP, you are comparing apples to non-apples.
  28. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    muoncounter (RE: 112),

    "See this thread for Antarctic ice mass loss.

    Answers to your question here, here and here. Really, these aren't that hard to find on your own, if you would just look."


    I know all this. None of it answers my question. I'm talking about the Antarctic sea ice increasing trend. Even if the Antarctic land mass is losing ice, the continent is never going to melt, unless you wait a few 10s or 100s of millions of years for it to move from it's current location.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Actually, the Antarctic Sea Ice trend is currently negative: With a long-term decline in evidence: Further reading here.
  29. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom @83
    You don't get the same outgoing radiation over water that you do over land (terrestrial). Last I checked, the Arctic was an ocean. CO2 or no CO2, you will get the same result if the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice. Solar radiation places it's energy deep in the water and it stays there until it escapes mainly by evaporation. Land is much better at converting insolation into outgoing IR.

    When interpreting the graph you present it is important to remember that the total longwave energy leaving must be reduced by the cosine of the latitude. Your graph is in units of power per unit area. It has to be integrrate over the area of the planet at each latitude. So a strip of the planet 1 degree wide at the equator receives and emits 40% more energy that a strip at 45 degrees. At 60 degrees it is 100% greater.

    In addition, if the polar region is snow covered with a high albedo the re-radiated energy is going to be shorter wavelengths up to UV. If the polar region is ice-free there simply isn't going to be a lot of longwave because the energy is deposited in the water and stays there. And 32 F water is not going to emit longwave like 80F water at the equator. So any effects of CO2 will be minimal compared to areas south of 45 degrees.
  30. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 41),

    "Of course, the figure you quoted is that derived from models which are underestimating the extent of sea ice loss in the arctic. Based on observation, the net forcing for the ice and snow loss to date is 0.62 w/m^2, and we have not yet experienced a full degree of global warming. That suggests the total effect could result in 7 to 10% additional warming, or up to an additional degree centigrade by the end of the century."

    I see, to the extent that models are underestimating observed Arctic sea ice melting, the models are likely wrong. To the extent that the models are overestimating warming, the models are still likely correct?

    That aside, how about we split the difference? Let's say each 1 degree C of warming will result in about +0.4 W/m^ from Arctic ice loss. That still leaves you way short. You need +16.6 W/m^2 at the surface for a 3 C rise. Assuming 2xCO2 gives you 1 C or about 5.6 W/m^2, where is the additional 11 W/m^2 coming from?

    Don't forget that the Antarctic sea ice is remaining stable or even increasing a little in recent years, and the albedo is remaining fairly stable or has even increased a little.

    In short, where is all the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the warming - specifically the 3 C rise?
  31. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @110: It's #9 on the list of most used skeptic arguments (the chart on the left). Maybe you should check there.
  32. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1: See this thread for Antarctic ice mass loss.

    Answers to your question here, here and here. Really, these aren't that hard to find on your own, if you would just look.
  33. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Norman @104, PIP2 does not disagree with PIOMAS, rather an analysis of PIP2 based on pixel counts purports to disagree with PIOMAS. In fact, however, it does not (whatever the text says).

    Consider the graph of October 1 ice extents by ice depth based on the pixel count:



    Consider the comparison of 1st Oct, 2007 with 1st Oct, 2010. The first thing to notice is that the total extent of sea ice that is 3 meters thick or thicker is greater in 2007 than in 2010. What is more, nearly half that ice is over 4 meters thick, and a quarter over 4.5 meters thick in 2007, while in 2010 only a third of the equivalent ice (and one ninth of the total) is over 4 meters thick, and virtually none is over 4.5 meters thick. Consequently, even though 2011 has a greater extent of 2 to 2.5 meter ice, we would expect on the PIP2 data for 2010 to have less ice.

    The author creates an opposite impression by concentrating initially on the Dec 31st data, while ignoring the strong rebound in the PIOMAS data to that date.

    The author thinks he can make a more telling analysis than this with his graph of volumes. However, that graph is based first on pixel counts on a plane projection of the pole, which underestimates the area of the thickest ice relative to the thinest, and the more so the greater the ice extent.

    He also, of necessity assumes that the contours mark sharp steps in ice thickness. He assumes that, for example, a change from a blue to a green shading is a change from (at minimum) 2 to 2.5 meters of ice thickness, where as it may have been a change from 2.45 to 2.52 meters thickness. The necessary approximation in this process means his method is to crude for any but the coarsest comparison. You should read his graphs as having error bars of plus or minus 50%, and allowing for that possible error, PIOMAS falls well within the range of his calculations.

    Of course, there is a directly measured product for ice volume available, that produced by Icesat:



    PIOMAS has been compared to it, and performs well:



    As you can see, when compared to measured data, PIOMAS, if anything, over estimates ice volume.

    So I guess it all depends on how you want to verify your data - actual observations, or pixel counts and pub coaster arithmetic.
  34. Meet The Denominator
    "Are these the high impact journals skeptics cannot get published in?"

    Ah, when all else fails, fall back on the old conspiracy theory-that high impact journals refuse to publish the work of skeptics. You deride so-called conspiracy theorists in other areas (like the JFK assassination & the 9/11 Troofers), yet you use *all* of their tactics to push your arguments. The fact is that *good* science has to meet very high, objective standards to get published in high impact journals. Even relatively medium-impact, ISI-listed journals still hold to very high standards. We leave the low-standard Junk Science to journals like E&E & Cato, which have an avowed goal of promoting AGW skepticism. Not exactly the best source of unbiased information.
  35. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    No one has answered my question: If 'global warming' is causing the Artic sea ice to melt, why isn't the Antarctic sea ice decreasing as well? Why has it even expanded in recent years?
  36. Meet The Denominator
    Alex, "you're all understandably exasperated with this,"

    Your Atlas cite should indeed have been the end of this train wreck. I'm curious: After the last few comments, do you have any further thoughts on the loss of credibility aspect of your comment here?
  37. Meet The Denominator
    "I've spoken to the publisher, two editors of the journal and six authors who all confirmed that E&E is peer-reviewed. It is amazing to see what lengths you will go to misrepresent a journal you do not like.

    Are there scholarly peer-reviewed journals not listed by the ISI?

    What is considered the gold standard is subjective."

    Again with your selective skepticism, PT. Have you asked anyone from *outside* of E&E whether or not their peer-review standards are up to accepted standards? No, you merely rely on those who edit the journal & a mere handful of authors who've been published there (indeed, probably the only "authors" who've even bother submitting to E&E)-none of whom are going to tell you otherwise. The fact remains that there are very few-if any-reputable scientists that will try & get their work published outside of ISI listed journals, because all of the scientific community recognize that only journals with the highest standard of peer-review will get accepted. E&E still hasn't made the cut, & only a mere handful of scientists actually submit work for publication within it-in itself a damning indictment-as is the fact that no E&E papers seem to ever get cited in papers published outside of E&E (talk about "confirmation bias"). Your pathetic attempts to claim that standards in science are merely "subjective" continues to reveal nothing more than your complete *ignorance* of science. Which is why everything you say here about science is complete & utter garbage. Take it from someone who actually *works* in the scientific community, & who knows junk science when he sees it-& the "work" of Beck & MacLean definitely fit that bill, no matter how "subjective" a standard you apply.

    "Incorrect, the existence of a criticism does not mean a paper is debunked."

    Seriously, Poptech, your reading skills are *abysmal*. I said, not merely criticized, but utterly *debunked*-i.e. "proven to be factually incorrect." Beck's & MacLean's work have both been *proven* to be factually incorrect, but you've still left them on your list-just because they support your supposed skepticism.
  38. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Marcus,

    "My point, RW1, is that you're refusing to be skeptical of a newspaper article, which sounds to be entirely based on anecdotal evidence, & covers just a *single year*-whilst being hugely skeptical of mountains of data covering several *decades*-more than enough to smooth out year to year variability. Indeed, current ice extent is lower than the average plus *two standard deviations*-so very much outside of natural variability for the last 10 years. That's not skepticism, that is *denial* of the *facts*."

    You're misunderstanding the context and implications of that quote I posted. I make no claim that it proves anything - only that it's suggestive of large variability in the Arctic. I'm not denying any facts either, and I'm well aware of the record as it is. I'm simply saying 30 years isn't enough data to know whether the downward trend is anything unusual, or more importantly if it's even the result of global warming, let alone CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming.
  39. Models are unreliable
    Thanks KR and Tom, I'll look at your links
  40. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 103),

    You're first chart in post 55 didn't give quantifications of the insolation, which is why it was unclear to me. The one on Wikipedia does. I wrongly assumed the brightest color was the equivalent of maximum insolation (or 1366 W/m^2).

    So I'm conceding that my point about reduced insolation as you get closer and closer to the poles was/is incorrect.
  41. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 103),

    It is, however, transparently obvious that the chart includes the effects of angles of incidence for if it did not it would not show zero insolation during winter at the poles."

    Angle relative to what? The spherical shape of the Earth or the angle of the tilt? Regardless, I guess since the solar constant is about 1366 W/m^2 and the maximum in the chart is only about 550 W/m^2, that would indicate that angle incidence is factored in.
  42. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Norman,
    A picture is worth a thousand words; a video must be worth a thousand pictures. Here's a link to an ice reconstruction video (originally posted here), which shows the age of the ice in color. Old ice (orange and red) is thicker than new ice (blue). And there's a lot less old ice.

    Riddle me this: What mechanism would produce one year old ice that is thicker than older ice? What mechanism would produce thickening ice at the same time as ice extent is so rapidly decreasing?
  43. Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
    Will the melting of the Tundra make a contribution to sea level rise?
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Directly (melt water raising sea levels), maybe a bit (haven't seen any papers quantifying that. But a Wiki search finds that permafrost accounts for 0.022% of total water). Indirectly, absolutely (see this paper - nice discussion of it by Romm over at Climate Progress).
  44. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    My point, RW1, is that you're refusing to be skeptical of a newspaper article, which sounds to be entirely based on anecdotal evidence, & covers just a *single year*-whilst being hugely skeptical of mountains of data covering several *decades*-more than enough to smooth out year to year variability. Indeed, current ice extent is lower than the average plus *two standard deviations*-so very much outside of natural variability for the last 10 years. That's not skepticism, that is *denial* of the *facts*.
  45. Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
    If "homeopathy" were the mechanism, then those who didn't smoke would be the ones getting the strongest protection from tobacco's medicinal properties. That's how homeopathy works, you dilute the substance in water and it gets stronger as the solution gets weaker, until the recommended level of dilution is such that there's probably no trace of the original ingredients in the water at all.
  46. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    #58 Tom Curtis

    You posted the PIOMAS graph for arctic ice volume that shows a steep decline in recent years. I was researching this a bit. You do realize that this graph is based upon some calculations and not based on empirical measurements of ice volume?

    From their site: "PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating observations. For the Ice Volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates. Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The Pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries."

    It seems another version disagrees with this one. PIP2 from the Navy show a totally different view of arctic ice volume.

    Two models for Arctic ice volume, which one is correct or are either of them right?.
  47. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @100, the formulae can be found here along with a variant version of the chart using different units. It is, however, transparently obvious that the chart includes the effects of angles of incidence for if it did not it would not show zero insolation during winter at the poles.

    As this discussion has degenerated to the point where your sole argument is to simply disbelieve any contrary data, I see no real point in continuing it.
  48. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1:

    The 1922 ice extent low can be seen in the Walsh data graph. That was above 10 million sq km; the low extent last year was 4.8 million sq km. How do you think your seals felt about that?
  49. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    RW1 @97, from further up the thread.
  50. A Swift Kick in the Ice
    Tom (RE: 96),

    "That means they do include the effect of angle of incidence on insolation,"

    I don't think so. How would it account for this? Perhaps I'm wrong, but can you point me to a source that verifies this? I understand that they do not include the effect of clouds.

Prev  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  1228  1229  1230  1231  1232  1233  1234  1235  1236  1237  1238  1239  1240  1241  Next



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us