Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
LongQ said:
Having been browsing around some other places I came across a reference to this Guardian article from 2012.
Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
Just had a look at the data linked from that article - particularly the antarctic data.Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interac...
There seems to be a lot of furore about rising temperatures and the impact it's having on the arctic sea ice (OMG 4th lowest arctic sea ice extend 'on record').....yet very little mention of the antarctic.
Looking at the antarctic sea ice extent for 2012 when that article was written - it was at or above the 1981-2010 average for much of the year. For 2015 it has been above +2 standard deviations from the mean for some of the year - and more or less bang on the average for the rest.
Could there be an element of cherry picking going on. Highlighting areas that seem to support the 'global warming' phenomenon (i.e. 'lower than average' arctic sea ice extent) - whilst ignoring data that doesn't fit with pre-conceived ideas of what should be happening to the world (i.e. higher than average antarctic sea ice extent)
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 5th January 07:58
Moonhawk said:
Could there be an element of cherry picking going on. Highlighting areas that seem to support the 'global warming' phenomenon (i.e. 'lower than average' arctic sea ice extent) - whilst ignoring data that doesn't fit with pre-conceived ideas of what should be happening to the world (i.e. higher than average antarctic sea ice extent)
The cherry picking might just be in your mind. NASA, for one, are readily acknowledging the sea ice extent in the Antarctic.Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 5th January 07:58
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea...
CR6ZZ said:
Moonhawk said:
Could there be an element of cherry picking going on. Highlighting areas that seem to support the 'global warming' phenomenon (i.e. 'lower than average' arctic sea ice extent) - whilst ignoring data that doesn't fit with pre-conceived ideas of what should be happening to the world (i.e. higher than average antarctic sea ice extent)
The cherry picking might just be in your mind. NASA, for one, are readily acknowledging the sea ice extent in the Antarctic.Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 5th January 07:58
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea...
plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
"Long Predicted" - only after the event Plunks. The GW Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 6th January 08:24
Jinx said:
plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
"Long Predicted" - only after the event Plunks. The GW Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 6th January 08:24
model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23);
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
• littie warming over the Arctic in summer;
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean;
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.
plunker said:
How about the 1995 IPCC report:
model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
0/8 come see me after class.model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
Jinx said:
plunker said:
How about the 1995 IPCC report:
model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
0/8 come see me after class.model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
..still stands.plunker said:
Jinx said:
plunker said:
How about the 1995 IPCC report:
model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
0/8 come see me after class.model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
• generally greater surface warming of the land than of the oceans in winter, as in equilibrium simulations (Figures 22 and 23); Antarctica is a land mass
• a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas; fail - no warming at all and "around Antarctica" is oceans so tautology with point 1?
• maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover; Fail - summer ice extent is not autumn/winter
• little warming over the Arctic in summer; not according to Cowtan et al.
• little seasonal variation of the warming in low latitudes or over the southern circumpolar ocean; huh - little variation in warming - from what to what? Are they saying no warming (true) or winter and summer warming are equivalent (fail)
• a reduction in diurnal temperature range over land in most seasons and most regions;fail - or are they really saying that there are less extremes?
• an enhanced global mean hydrological cycle;fail - no evidence of increased H2O in atmosphere
• increased precipitation in high latitudes in winter.fail -see above
plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
..still stands.plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
People with an interest in the subject know the arctic ice is far more vulnerable to warming than the antarctic and models have long predicted the arctic would warm faster than the antarctic.
Which contradicts the first point in your IPCC 1995 model assessment (Arctic is an Ocean - Antarctic is a land mass)AntarcticA is a land mass and the Arctic Ocean is an ocean.
And note the word 'generally' in the first point.
Edited by plunker on Wednesday 6th January 18:07
plunker said:
No - the arctic/antarctic are polar regions incorporating both oceans and land masses.
AntarcticA is a land mass and the Arctic Ocean is an ocean.
And note the word 'generally' in the first point.
Way to miss the point plunks - you don't think it is odd that the "mainly ocean" arctic and "mainly land mass" Antarctic behave opposite to the general rule associated with the patterns in the climate model runs? Magic CO2 able to both warm and cool at will? AntarcticA is a land mass and the Arctic Ocean is an ocean.
And note the word 'generally' in the first point.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
No - the arctic/antarctic are polar regions incorporating both oceans and land masses.
AntarcticA is a land mass and the Arctic Ocean is an ocean.
And note the word 'generally' in the first point.
Way to miss the point plunks - you don't think it is odd that the "mainly ocean" arctic and "mainly land mass" Antarctic behave opposite to the general rule associated with the patterns in the climate model runs? Magic CO2 able to both warm and cool at will? AntarcticA is a land mass and the Arctic Ocean is an ocean.
And note the word 'generally' in the first point.
You're kind of making my point for me - it's the sceptics who like to point at the antarctic when discussing the arctic as though they're equivalent when in fact they are very different places with different expectations in terms of response to global warming. That was my point.
(edited to make legible)
Edited by plunker on Thursday 7th January 12:10
plunker said:
Do I think it's odd that the planet is generally responding in-line with how models generally predict it will? Not really no.
You're kind of making my point for me - it's the sceptics who make who like to point at the antarctic when discussing the arctic as though they're equivalent when in fact they are very different places with different expectations in terms of response to global warming. That was my point.
If you predict a horse will win at Ascot you are not predicting anything at all. "Generally" covers a lot of nothing and is not science. Everyone should be sceptical as the opposite is not considered a compliment. You're kind of making my point for me - it's the sceptics who make who like to point at the antarctic when discussing the arctic as though they're equivalent when in fact they are very different places with different expectations in terms of response to global warming. That was my point.
robinessex said:
As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bulls
t. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.
If miniscule little mankind launches all it's nuclear missiles ( including North Korea's 3, er, 2 ... 0.5) I bet you might change your tune.t. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
I have heard reported that Alaska has our missing negative heat. This graph seems like it might fit with that observation if I have read it correctly.(Or is it some sort of Mannian upside down representation of some other reality?)
I was more interested in the comments posted afterwards than the actual graphs to see if I could pick up any bias on this scientific thread by the posters. I certainly got bias on my first post of a graph
"And the Antarctic? Gosh!"
which was pro skeptic.
So I posted this up to see if I would get pro skeptic comments after this also?
It's just my small litmus test for the science thread to make sure it's not getting infiltrated by people with political bias from the other thread.
The answer is that the graph I just linked to seems to be out of alignment with other graphs showing same and should be investigated further.
I'll let you know how it goes.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
which seems to be another of their graphs pointing to flaws in the previous graph and with a link back to it.
Is the Danish higher education system being subjected to a period of schizophrenia?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
because they are not checking it at all. Since it did that Steve Goddard has failed to mention it ....
Gandahar said:
robinessex said:
As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bullst. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.
If miniscule little mankind launches all it's nuclear missiles ( including North Korea's 3, er, 2 ... 0.5) I bet you might change your tune.t. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.LongQ said:
Having been browsing around some other places I came across a reference to this Guardian article from 2012.
Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
It's never a good idea to forecast the Arctic either for rebounds or death spirals, both sides tend to over egg the pudding the way they are biased towards.Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
2007 was an exceptional year, lots of sun and warm winds from the south both melting and compacting the ice. 2012 a large summer storm broke up the ice which then melted out a lot easier. Both years could be excluded easily and the general trend looked at instead.
In 2013 an ice scientist told me they were surprised how well the ice had rebounded after 2012. So the Arctic is full of surprises. We are only starting to really map the ice volume now, so before it was a bit 2D. Given the lack of knowledge there still seems to be a lack of full understanding, therefore claiming the current downward trend is due to climate change seems to be a possible reason, but not set in stone as some would say.
It's just fun watching it and seeing how it goes.
robinessex said:
Gandahar said:
robinessex said:
As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bullst. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.
If miniscule little mankind launches all it's nuclear missiles ( including North Korea's 3, er, 2 ... 0.5) I bet you might change your tune.t. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.Moonhawk said:
LongQ said:
Having been browsing around some other places I came across a reference to this Guardian article from 2012.
Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
Just had a look at the data linked from that article - particularly the antarctic data.Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...
So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interac...
There seems to be a lot of furore about rising temperatures and the impact it's having on the arctic sea ice (OMG 4th lowest arctic sea ice extend 'on record').....yet very little mention of the antarctic.
Looking at the antarctic sea ice extent for 2012 when that article was written - it was at or above the 1981-2010 average for much of the year. For 2015 it has been above +2 standard deviations from the mean for some of the year - and more or less bang on the average for the rest.
Could there be an element of cherry picking going on. Highlighting areas that seem to support the 'global warming' phenomenon (i.e. 'lower than average' arctic sea ice extent) - whilst ignoring data that doesn't fit with pre-conceived ideas of what should be happening to the world (i.e. higher than average antarctic sea ice extent)
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 5th January 07:58
Some people commented on the fact that they said nothing about the Antarctic so they have been putting up a bit more about it for the last 18months or so.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff