Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
don4l said:
turbobloke said:
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Thicker than previously thought, and not just political greens.
An underwater robot has shown the ice is much thicker than previously thought, (new study in Nature Geoscience, 24 Nov), about twice as thick.
Climate models say sea ice should not be doing that. Naughty sea ice. Clearly the models are right and the sea ice is wrong.
If you actually read the blog/paper it just says that scientists have used a new system for measuring the thickness of the ice and it's thicker than they thought. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the ice has got thicker or thinner over time (i.e. it may well have been thicker all along).An underwater robot has shown the ice is much thicker than previously thought, (new study in Nature Geoscience, 24 Nov), about twice as thick.
Climate models say sea ice should not be doing that. Naughty sea ice. Clearly the models are right and the sea ice is wrong.
Where's a mensurating robot when you need one.
turbobloke said:
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Thicker than previously thought, and not just political greens.
An underwater robot has shown the ice is much thicker than previously thought, (new study in Nature Geoscience, 24 Nov), about twice as thick.
Climate models say sea ice should not be doing that. Naughty sea ice. Clearly the models are right and the sea ice is wrong.
If you actually read the blog/paper it just says that scientists have used a new system for measuring the thickness of the ice and it's thicker than they thought. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the ice has got thicker or thinner over time (i.e. it may well have been thicker all along).An underwater robot has shown the ice is much thicker than previously thought, (new study in Nature Geoscience, 24 Nov), about twice as thick.
Climate models say sea ice should not be doing that. Naughty sea ice. Clearly the models are right and the sea ice is wrong.
As I posted the news in the first place I might just have read the available information, and where in my brief comment did I mention a trend over time?
Whatever the measure and trend may be there's no established causality to anthropogenic emissions in ice mass changes so this isn't evidence of manmadeup warming anywhichway.
Hundredths and Thousandths or Icing On The Cake?
I suspect that if 2014 does technically become the warmest year on record (in any one of the non-satellite data sets) then we will see dramatic headlines to that effect, even if the record is broken by a hundredth or a few thousandths of a degree. The real story will be that the so-called biggest puzzle in climate science – the global surface temperature standstill – then entering its 19th year.
Dr David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 22 November 2014
I suspect that if 2014 does technically become the warmest year on record (in any one of the non-satellite data sets) then we will see dramatic headlines to that effect, even if the record is broken by a hundredth or a few thousandths of a degree. The real story will be that the so-called biggest puzzle in climate science – the global surface temperature standstill – then entering its 19th year.
Dr David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 22 November 2014
Thinking further on the meaningless notion of what 2014 turns out to be, if nature gets it wrong then Mystic Met could always make a retrospective change so no claim of the possibility ever existed. They have form.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/...
performance whitewashed stonewalling looks like.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-offi...
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/...
NALOPKT said:
It would appear that the Met have deliberately fabricated a new version of their Dec 2011 forecast, in order to avoid making the original version look too ridiculous.
If questions are then asked in The House, obfuscation of marathon proportions is available. Mystic Met has form there as well. This is worth reading through just to see what world class Link below said:
It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The basis for the claim has recently been discussed in the UK Parliament. It turns out that the claim has no basis, and scientists at the Met Office have been trying to cover that up.
Read on for the obfuscation olympics commentary here:http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-offi...
A bod called Julian from the Met Office was interviewed on my local BBC radio station yesterday about the likelihood of global warming causing more severe hurricanes. He said if surface temperature and atmospheric temperature rose at the same pace, there would be no additional disruption.
One has to say one jolly well fell off one's stool when one heard that...
No doubt he spent today in the office on the naughty step.
One has to say one jolly well fell off one's stool when one heard that...
No doubt he spent today in the office on the naughty step.
Lotus 50 said:
OK I'll try and explain. The blog you referred to uses a new measuring system to survey Antarctic sea ice and indeed it does suggest that the sea ice is thicker than thought (i.e. previously measured) BUT this is down to a new and improved measuring technique and does not mean that the ice has actually got thicker it may well mean that previous measuring techniques are likely to have under-estimated the thickness of the ice. As a result it is does not provide evidence against climate models as your statement that "Climate models say sea ice should not be doing that. Naughty sea ice" suggests.
Shirley, it does indeed provide evidence against the models? The models have hitherto been programmed with incorrect Antarctic sea ice thickness figures, which extrapolate into all sorts of other measures of sea ice amount. Therefore, how can their conclusions be trusted? I'm sure that you would agree that this parameter must be an important one . 
Shall we mention this to the 97%?
Edited by Blib on Monday 24th November 22:11
Lotus 50 said:
If you actually read the blog/paper it just says that scientists have used a new system for measuring the thickness of the ice and it's thicker than they thought. It doesn't say anything about whether or not the ice has got thicker or thinner over time (i.e. it may well have been thicker all along).
"Most sea ice around Antarctica melts during the summer and refreezes in winter. Past research has suggested the ice is about a metre thick on average, reaching up to five metres in some places.
But the new research suggests those estimates might be on the low side, with more than 90 per cent of ice thicker than one metre, 40 per cent thicker than three metres, and almost 20 per cent thicker than five metres. The data suggests some areas of sea ice are as thick as 16 metres.
'A huge step forward'
The new data about ice thickness allows the scientists to better understand what's happening to sea ice around Antarctica.
Satellite records show the winter extent of sea ice is increasing in some regions of Antarctica, while decreasing in others. Overall, sea ice extent has been increasing by around 17,000 square kilometres per year since the late 1970s, though loss of Arctic sea ice at the North Pole is over three times greater.
But observations show the Southern Ocean that surrounds the Antarctic is warming faster than the other oceans.
Scientists think there could be several reasons that this is happening, though what exactly is going on is proving hard to pin down. These include refreezing of meltwater from ice shelves, changes in wind patterns caused by the hole in the ozone layer, and changes in ocean currents stopping warm water from rising to the surface.
Co-author Dr Guy Williams tells us that the research could help scientists understand what's going on:
"While we have not measured all Antarctic sea ice thickness and cannot state if it is getting thicker [or not], this study is a huge step towards the sort of expanded and more routine measurements we will need to do to truly answer these questions."
So it may be too soon to tell if Antarctic sea ice is getting thicker as well as covering a larger area as temperatures rise. But the new research is a taster of the information scientists will need to find out, and the technology that is helping them to get it."
the statement the southern ocean is warming faster than any other is questionable too. the fact is oceanic temperature data is sparse in the extreme ,and a few measurements being extrapolated over thousands of cubic miles are not much better than guesswork."Most sea ice around Antarctica melts during the summer and refreezes in winter. Past research has suggested the ice is about a metre thick on average, reaching up to five metres in some places.
But the new research suggests those estimates might be on the low side, with more than 90 per cent of ice thicker than one metre, 40 per cent thicker than three metres, and almost 20 per cent thicker than five metres. The data suggests some areas of sea ice are as thick as 16 metres.
'A huge step forward'
The new data about ice thickness allows the scientists to better understand what's happening to sea ice around Antarctica.
Satellite records show the winter extent of sea ice is increasing in some regions of Antarctica, while decreasing in others. Overall, sea ice extent has been increasing by around 17,000 square kilometres per year since the late 1970s, though loss of Arctic sea ice at the North Pole is over three times greater.
But observations show the Southern Ocean that surrounds the Antarctic is warming faster than the other oceans.
Scientists think there could be several reasons that this is happening, though what exactly is going on is proving hard to pin down. These include refreezing of meltwater from ice shelves, changes in wind patterns caused by the hole in the ozone layer, and changes in ocean currents stopping warm water from rising to the surface.
Co-author Dr Guy Williams tells us that the research could help scientists understand what's going on:
"While we have not measured all Antarctic sea ice thickness and cannot state if it is getting thicker [or not], this study is a huge step towards the sort of expanded and more routine measurements we will need to do to truly answer these questions."
So it may be too soon to tell if Antarctic sea ice is getting thicker as well as covering a larger area as temperatures rise. But the new research is a taster of the information scientists will need to find out, and the technology that is helping them to get it."
Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 24th November 19:01
turbobloke said:
That'll be due to this here accelerating global warming we all know about and see around us.
Hang on a mo...
LitSearch Alert! 100% Consensus!! Read all about it!!! Scientists Say IPCC Is Wrong!!!! Shocker!!!!!
"We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years” say scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger. "This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating,"
Tsk, schoolboy error there. The data don't matter. If computer climate models say scorchio then that's reality and real reality freezing is wrong, also a global warming slowdown to standstill really can be accelerating global warming at the same time - it makes perfect sense.
In other news, the IPCC will be doing stand-up this winter instead of their usual pantomime.
this is the back pedaling beginning in case habibulo abdusamatov is correct with his prediction of a slight cooling trend beginning ,though how the hell it will ever be measured with gavin schmidt smearing and extrapolating physical measurements using questionable reasoning i do not know,for example the supposed warming of the antarctic appears to be generated from one small area on the western peninsula inhabited by scientists and smeared by algorerithm (not a typo) to warm most of the continent.Hang on a mo...
LitSearch Alert! 100% Consensus!! Read all about it!!! Scientists Say IPCC Is Wrong!!!! Shocker!!!!!
"We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years” say scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger. "This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating,"
Tsk, schoolboy error there. The data don't matter. If computer climate models say scorchio then that's reality and real reality freezing is wrong, also a global warming slowdown to standstill really can be accelerating global warming at the same time - it makes perfect sense.
In other news, the IPCC will be doing stand-up this winter instead of their usual pantomime.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/...
Nice bit of Yeo bashing in Westminster as he defends his snout in the trough.
Nice bit of Yeo bashing in Westminster as he defends his snout in the trough.
mybrainhurts said:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/...
Nice bit of Yeo bashing in Westminster as he defends his snout in the trough.
Good to see, but the transcript makes for 'interesting' reading when it's so full of endorsed inaccuracies! Nice bit of Yeo bashing in Westminster as he defends his snout in the trough.
He even quoted King ffs.
hidetheelephants said:
wc98 said:
algorerithm
My word of the day;Algorerithm; In climate faith an algoreithm is a step-by-step procedure for calculating how much doom we are in. Algoreithms are used for creating doubt, uncertainty, and automated fearmongering.
mybrainhurts said:
hidetheelephants said:
wc98 said:
algorerithm
My word of the day;Algorerithm; In climate faith an algoreithm is a step-by-step procedure for calculating how much doom we are in. Algoreithms are used for creating doubt, uncertainty, and automated fearmongering.
hidetheelephants said:
wc98 said:
algorerithm
My word of the day;Algorerithm; In climate faith an algoreithm is a step-by-step procedure for calculating how much doom we are in. Algoreithms are used for creating doubt, uncertainty, and automated fearmongering.
Wind Farm Ad That Tried To Pull The Wool
On November 7, Guardian readers were excited by a huge two-page
advertisement from the wind farm company Ecotricity, hailing what it
described as "a historic event". This, it explained, was on Sunday
October 19, following the Didcot power station fire, when several
other major power plants were also, for various reasons, offline. But
millions of homes across Britain, we were told, would never have
noticed. Our lights stayed on solely because wind farms had come to
the rescue, contributing a record 25 per cent of all the electricity
we were using. This showed just how vital wind has now become in
supplying "our energy needs".
Like others, I was intrigued by this claim, because I had never known
those notoriously unreliable wind turbines to generate anything like
such a high percentage. So, with the expert help of National Grid and
the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), I did some detective work. For
a start, National Grid was able to tell me that there was indeed a
brief moment on October 19 when wind supplied 25 per cent of our
electricity. But this was at 5.30 in the morning, when demand is at
its very lowest. The figure for the whole of that windy day was only
14 percent. Furthermore, according to a detailed analysis by REF, what
had really kept our lights on was that several other major coal- and
gas-fired power stations stayed operating longer than planned, while
wind farms in Scotland were actually having to be paid to go offline
because their excessive output was causing problems for the grid in
England.
So that very brief moment when all the 5,500 wind turbines in Britain
were contributing 25 per cent of our power was not only highly
untypical, but also served yet again to highlight the real problem
with wind: that it fluctuates so wildly and unpredictably from one
extreme to the other. At 4.30 last Thursday afternoon, for instance,
it was contributing to the grid less than 2 per cent, when coal and
gas between them were supplying 74 per cent, with 6 per cent more
imported from France and Holland.
In other words, that Ecotricity advertisement was, in almost every
respect, misleading; which is hardly surprising, since the firm's
owner, Dale Vince, is famous as a master of green propaganda. It was
he who erected the most famous wind turbine in the country - and also
one of the least efficient - seen by millions of motorists each year
as they drive along the M4 past Reading. In 2006,1 reported how, to
mark the go-ahead for a monster wind farm in the Thames Estuary, the
BBC announced a celebratory programme from Reading's "Green Park", to
be powered entirely by Mr Vince's windmill. Sure enough, the wind
dropped, forcing the BBC to rely on a nasty, CO2-emitting diesel
generator. Yet it is on machines like Mr Vince's turbine that our
government has centred Britain's entire future energy policy.
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 23 November 2014
On November 7, Guardian readers were excited by a huge two-page
advertisement from the wind farm company Ecotricity, hailing what it
described as "a historic event". This, it explained, was on Sunday
October 19, following the Didcot power station fire, when several
other major power plants were also, for various reasons, offline. But
millions of homes across Britain, we were told, would never have
noticed. Our lights stayed on solely because wind farms had come to
the rescue, contributing a record 25 per cent of all the electricity
we were using. This showed just how vital wind has now become in
supplying "our energy needs".
Like others, I was intrigued by this claim, because I had never known
those notoriously unreliable wind turbines to generate anything like
such a high percentage. So, with the expert help of National Grid and
the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), I did some detective work. For
a start, National Grid was able to tell me that there was indeed a
brief moment on October 19 when wind supplied 25 per cent of our
electricity. But this was at 5.30 in the morning, when demand is at
its very lowest. The figure for the whole of that windy day was only
14 percent. Furthermore, according to a detailed analysis by REF, what
had really kept our lights on was that several other major coal- and
gas-fired power stations stayed operating longer than planned, while
wind farms in Scotland were actually having to be paid to go offline
because their excessive output was causing problems for the grid in
England.
So that very brief moment when all the 5,500 wind turbines in Britain
were contributing 25 per cent of our power was not only highly
untypical, but also served yet again to highlight the real problem
with wind: that it fluctuates so wildly and unpredictably from one
extreme to the other. At 4.30 last Thursday afternoon, for instance,
it was contributing to the grid less than 2 per cent, when coal and
gas between them were supplying 74 per cent, with 6 per cent more
imported from France and Holland.
In other words, that Ecotricity advertisement was, in almost every
respect, misleading; which is hardly surprising, since the firm's
owner, Dale Vince, is famous as a master of green propaganda. It was
he who erected the most famous wind turbine in the country - and also
one of the least efficient - seen by millions of motorists each year
as they drive along the M4 past Reading. In 2006,1 reported how, to
mark the go-ahead for a monster wind farm in the Thames Estuary, the
BBC announced a celebratory programme from Reading's "Green Park", to
be powered entirely by Mr Vince's windmill. Sure enough, the wind
dropped, forcing the BBC to rely on a nasty, CO2-emitting diesel
generator. Yet it is on machines like Mr Vince's turbine that our
government has centred Britain's entire future energy policy.
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 23 November 2014
Apropos the Christopher Brooker revelation, an apocryphal tale from the 1970s said that a saloon car race at Brands Hatch had such a high attrition rate through bad weather (I seem to recall) that only two cars passed the finish line: a Mini Cooper and Moskvitch. The 1.5 litre Russian cars sometimes did well against the smaller engined cars if the style of circuit was kind to them, and they raced in multi-class races as 'under £xx list price - along with Minis of the day. The Mini Cooper crossed the line first with the Moskvitch some distance behind it. This was reported in USSR as a race in which the glorious Moskvitch came second while the 'wonderful' Mini managed only second to last. So this windfarm's publicity comes from the USSR School of Distorted Reporting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff